Are sacraments received outside the Catholic Church considered valid?

[XianThinker]

Does anyone know the official position of the Catholic Church about the effectiveness of sacraments received by heretics and schismatics (non-Catholic churches)? For example, if a person is baptized in a Protestant church, will his sins be remitted? If he is confirmed, will he receive the Holy Spirit? If he partakes of the Eucharist, will he receive the body and blood of the Lord?

I’d also like to know why the sacraments would be or wouldn’t be valid. If the Catholic Church is the one and only church established and accepted by Jesus, then it seems like none of the sacraments received outside the Church would be valid. If there is only “one body” (Eph 4:4), then how could those outside the church remit sins through baptism or give the Holy Spirit through confirmation?

If a person can receive the remission of sins and the Holy Spirit outside of the Church, then are many churches whereby one can be saved and no compelling reason to join the one Church founded by Jesus.

How can there by many churches who have the power to save and make people children of God when Jesus said “He that is not with me is against me (Lk 11:23)” and even called those who “went out from us” antichrists?

What exactly is the one Church Jesus founded? Is it the Catholic Church or an invisible universal Church consisting of everyone who is born again?

 

[JaKael02]

Validity is determined by the Priest Holy Orders. If they are valid Holy Orders, then Sacraments are valid, even if performed in a schismatic church.

Baptism is valid in all Protestant churchs b/c Holy Orders is not necessary for that Sacrament. But must be done w/ the trinity formula. Same goes for marriage.

That’s the short version. Others please expand upon my answer! Kindy - James

 

[Actaeon]

Does anyone know the official position of the Catholic Church about the effectiveness of sacraments received by heretics and schismatics (non-Catholic churches)? For example, if a person is baptized in a Protestant church, will his sins be remitted? If he is confirmed, will he receive the Holy Spirit? If he partakes of the Eucharist, will he receive the body and blood of the Lord?

I’d also like to know why the sacraments would be or wouldn’t be valid. If the Catholic Church is the one and only church established and accepted by Jesus, then it seems like none of the sacraments received outside the Church would be valid. If there is only “one body” (Eph 4:4), then how could those outside the church remit sins through baptism or give the Holy Spirit through confirmation?

If a person can receive the remission of sins and the Holy Spirit outside of the Church, then are many churches whereby one can be saved and no compelling reason to join the one Church founded by Jesus.

How can there by many churches who have the power to save and make people children of God when Jesus said “He that is not with me is against me (Lk 11:23)” and even called those who “went out from us” antichrists?

What exactly is the one Church Jesus founded? Is it the Catholic Church or an invisible universal Church consisting of everyone who is born again?

It all depends on the proper form, matter, and minister of the sacrament in question. Since the proper minister of baptism, for example, doesn’t necessarily entail a priest, then ANY protestant baptism given in the proper form (baptise you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit/Ghost) and proper matter (water) is valid (even if in some cases it might be illicit).

I’m a little less certain on the issue of sacramentality of marriage between non catholics (although they are certainly VALIDLY married)… because in a marriage the husband and wife are the proper (ordinary) ministers to each other, and the authoritive agent of the church acts as a witness required for validity… perhaps some other poster could clarify if there are sacramental marriages between protestants???

As to all the other sacraments, the ordinary minister is the priest or bishop(s) and there is no caveat for a non-ordained minister to enact the sacraments in those cases.

As for schismatics, such as the orthodox or “old catholics”, they have valid ordination, so they can enact valid sacraments given proper form and matter, but those sacraments, while valid, are offered illicitly…

 

[1ke]

Does anyone know the official position of the Catholic Church about the effectiveness of sacraments received by heretics and schismatics (non-Catholic churches)? For example, if a person is baptized in a Protestant church, will his sins be remitted? If he is confirmed, will he receive the Holy Spirit? If he partakes of the Eucharist, will he receive the body and blood of the Lord?

The Church settled the matter of validity of sacraments in heretical and schismatic Churches in the 2nd century. The Church determined their baptism, and other sacraments, were valid. Therefore, the Nicene Creed says we recognize “one baptism” for the forgiveness of sins. Heretics and schismatics were not "re"baptized.

Now, in th early Church all of these groups had valid Holy Orders, so they would be equivalent to real Churches (Orthodox for example).

Protestants do not have Holy Orders therefore the only sacraments valid in those ecclesial communions (they are not Churches) are baptism and marriage. The Catholic Church recognizes the fundamental necessity of baptism and therefore makes provision that anyone may baptize under certain conditions. In the Latin understanding of the sacrament of marriage, the couple can validly marry before a witness who is not a priest in certain circumstances, and therefore that carries over to our Protestant friends.

I’d also like to know why the sacraments would be or wouldn’t be valid. If the Catholic Church is the one and only church established and accepted by Jesus, then it seems like none of the sacraments received outside the Church would be valid. If there is only “one body” (Eph 4:4), then how could those outside the church remit sins through baptism or give the Holy Spirit through confirmation?

Valid Holy Orders produce valid sacraments.

What exactly is the one Church Jesus founded? Is it the Catholic Church or an invisible universal Church consisting of everyone who is born again?

All those who are Christian are incorporated into the Catholic Church in various ways. I suggest you read the entire Catechism section on the Church.

 

[1ke]

I’m a little less certain on the issue of sacramentality of marriage between non catholics (although they are certainly VALIDLY married)… because in a marriage the husband and wife are the proper (ordinary) ministers to each other, and the authoritive agent of the church acts as a witness required for validity… perhaps some other poster could clarify if there are sacramental marriages between protestants???

A valid marriage between two baptized people is by its very nature a sacrament. So, yes, if they are validly married and both baptized, it is a sacrament.

 

[XianThinker]

Validity is determined by the Priest Holy Orders. If they are valid Holy Orders, then Sacraments are valid, even if performed in a schismatic church.

Baptism is valid in all Protestant churchs b/c Holy Orders is not necessary for that Sacrament. But must be done w/ the trinity formula. Same goes for marriage.

That’s the short version. Others please expand upon my answer! Kindy - James

I’m mainly concerned about baptism and confirmation. If a person’s baptism is considered valid but his confirmation is not, would that mean his sins were remitted but he still doesn’t have the Holy Spirit? Would he be considered a partial Christian or not a Christian at all?

 

[XianThinker]

The reason I ask is because I’m studying Cyprian and he seemed to make a valid point when he said:

“But it is to approve the baptism of heretics and schismatics, to admit that they have truly baptized. For therein a part cannot be void, and part be valid. If one could baptize, he could also give the Holy Spirit. But if he cannot give the Holy Spirit, because he that is appointed without is not endowed with the Holy Spirit, he cannot baptize those who come; since both baptism is one and the Holy Spirit is one, and the Church founded by Christ the Lord upon Peter, by a source and principle of unity, is one also. Hence it results, that since with them all things are futile and false, nothing of that which they have done ought to be approved by us. For what can be ratified and established by God which is done by them whom the Lord calls His enemies and adversaries? Setting forth in His Gospel, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathers not with me, scatters.” Luke 11:23 And the blessed Apostle John also, keeping the commandments and precepts of the Lord, has laid it down in his epistle, and said, “You have heard that antichrist shall come: even now there are many Antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, no doubt they would have continued with us.” 1 John 2:18-19 Whence we also ought to gather and consider whether they who are the Lord’s adversaries, and are called antichrists, can give the grace of Christ. (Cyprian, Epistle 69, 3)”

 

[R_C]

Baptism is a different issue.

The Sacrament of Baptism, when properly performed in the Trinitarian form according to the word of Jesus, acts ex opere operato, that is, regardless of the person performing it and of the person receiving it. “In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize.”

 

[po18guy]

The reason I ask is because I’m studying Cyprian and he seemed to make a valid point when he said:

“But it is to approve the baptism of heretics and schismatics, to admit that they have truly baptized. For therein a part cannot be void, and part be valid. If one could baptize, he could also give the Holy Spirit. But if he cannot give the Holy Spirit, because he that is appointed without is not endowed with the Holy Spirit, he cannot baptize those who come; since both baptism is one and the Holy Spirit is one, and the Church founded by Christ the Lord upon Peter, by a source and principle of unity, is one also. Hence it results, that since with them all things are futile and false, nothing of that which they have done ought to be approved by us. For what can be ratified and established by God which is done by them whom the Lord calls His enemies and adversaries? Setting forth in His Gospel, “He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathers not with me, scatters.” Luke 11:23 And the blessed Apostle John also, keeping the commandments and precepts of the Lord, has laid it down in his epistle, and said, “You have heard that antichrist shall come: even now there are many Antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, no doubt they would have continued with us.” 1 John 2:18-19 Whence we also ought to gather and consider whether they who are the Lord’s adversaries, and are called antichrists, can give the grace of Christ. (Cyprian, Epistle 69, 3)”

It all depends upon whom the heretics were that Cyprian was writing of. They might have denied the Trinity, thus, even their 'baptism" could reasonably be questioned.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The reason I ask is because I’m studying Cyprian

Cyprian was writing at a time when the validity of Baptism by heretics (who possibly are not themselves Baptized) was hotly debated. Cyprian was a strong opponent of this idea (he would not even use the word “Baptized” in this context - he said, “those made wet by heretics.” I think that’s funny.

Cyprian was a very influential Bishop (he was nicknamed The African Pope), and his influence is strongly felt today (he came up with our Canon of the New Testament). But he was overruled in the matter of Baptism by heretics (or pagans).

This was an early debate about the “worthiness” of the minister which has arisen about other Sacraments as well. How can someone give what he does not have? How can a priest who is not in a state of Grace (through mortal sin) absolve another? Or how can a Bishop who is not in a State of Grace ordain someone? How can an unbaptized person Baptize?

The Church maintains that the worthiness of the minister is irrelevant (provided he would be capable of conferring the Sacrament under ideal conditions) - because it is ultimately Christ who is the minister of the Sacrament, and Christ can confer Grace through imperfect ministers.

By the way, when Cyprian spoke of giving the Holy Spirit, he meant the effect of Baptism (obviously heretics can go through the motions, but do they give the Holy Spirit?). He was not referring to Confirmation.

 

[porthos11]

Validity is determined by the Priest Holy Orders. If they are valid Holy Orders, then Sacraments are valid, even if performed in a schismatic church.

Baptism is valid in all Protestant churchs b/c Holy Orders is not necessary for that Sacrament. But must be done w/ the trinity formula. Same goes for marriage.

That’s the short version. Others please expand upon my answer! Kindy - James

Not necessarily true in all cases. For Confession and marriage, jurisdiction/faculties are needed as well, and this is given by one’s Ordinary. A Catholic, for example cannot be validly absolved by an Orthodox or SSPX priest.

 

[pablope]

Does anyone know the official position of the Catholic Church about the effectiveness of sacraments received by heretics and schismatics (non-Catholic churches)? For example, if a person is baptized in a Protestant church, will his sins be remitted? If he is confirmed, will he receive the Holy Spirit? If he partakes of the Eucharist, will he receive the body and blood of the Lord?

I’d also like to know why the sacraments would be or wouldn’t be valid. If the Catholic Church is the one and only church established and accepted by Jesus, then it seems like none of the sacraments received outside the Church would be valid. If there is only “one body” (Eph 4:4), then how could those outside the church remit sins through baptism or give the Holy Spirit through confirmation?

If a person can receive the remission of sins and the Holy Spirit outside of the Church, then are many churches whereby one can be saved and no compelling reason to join the one Church founded by Jesus.

How can there by many churches who have the power to save and make people children of God when Jesus said “He that is not with me is against me (Lk 11:23)” and even called those who “went out from us” antichrists?

What exactly is the one Church Jesus founded? Is it the Catholic Church or an invisible universal Church consisting of everyone who is born again?

Hopefully, this will explain the role of priests/ministers:

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PRIEST3.HTM

 

[pablope]

I’m mainly concerned about baptism and confirmation. If a person’s baptism is considered valid but his confirmation is not, would that mean his sins were remitted but he still doesn’t have the Holy Spirit? Would he be considered a partial Christian or not a Christian at all?

A lot of protestant denoms do not have confirmation. Only the RCC and the Orthodox.

 

[Todd_Easton]

If a person’s baptism is considered valid but his confirmation is not, would that mean his sins were remitted but he still doesn’t have the Holy Spirit? Would he be considered a partial Christian or not a Christian at all?

No. A person receives the Holy Spirit and becomes a Christian at baptism. Confirmation is more like a spiritual booster shot, that strengthens and increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit already in him. A person who has been baptized but not validly confirmed is an imperfectly initiated Christian. The same applies to the person who has been baptized but who as not yet received valid Holy Communion.

 

[1ke]

I’m mainly concerned about baptism and confirmation. If a person’s baptism is considered valid but his confirmation is not, would that mean his sins were remitted but he still doesn’t have the Holy Spirit?

We receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

Would he be considered a partial Christian or not a Christian at all?

A validly baptized person is a Christian.

 

[XianThinker]

No. A person receives the Holy Spirit and becomes a Christian at baptism. Confirmation is more like a spiritual booster shot, that strengthens and increases the gifts of the Holy Spirit already in him. A person who has been baptized but not validly confirmed is an imperfectly initiated Christian. The same applies to the person who has been baptized but who as not yet received valid Holy Communion.

What about Acts 8:14-17? “When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. (NIV)”

They were baptized but didn’t have the Holy Spirit until the apostles laid hands on them. This passage was quoted in something I read to support the Catholic sacrament of confirmation. Is this something different?

 

[Todd_Easton]

What about Acts 8:14-17? “When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus. Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit. (NIV)”

They were baptized but didn’t have the Holy Spirit until the apostles laid hands on them. This passage was quoted in something I read to support the Catholic sacrament of confirmation. Is this something different?

Haydock’s commentary on Acts 8:15, 17 might be helpful here:

Ver. 15. The Holy Ghost, which the apostles came to give the Samaritan Neophytes, was not the spirit of grace, of justice, and of sanctity, for that they had received at baptism; but the spirit of strength, to confess with confidence and freedom the name of Jesus, and the supernatural and miraculous graces, usually at that time granted to the faithful, by the imposition of hands. Philip did not administer the sacrament, because he could not; he was not a bishop. . . .
Ver. 17. They received the Holy Ghost. Not but that they had received the grace of the Holy Ghost at their baptism; but not that plentitude of grace, and those gifts, which they received from bishops in the sacrament of confirmation. . . .

Acts 8:14-17 refers to a particular outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Consider the Apostles. They received the Holy Spirit on Easter Sunday (John 20:22) and also on Pentecost Sunday. (Acts 2:4)

 

[pgnat1]

We receive the Holy Spirit at baptism.

A validly baptized person is a Christian.

Just a side note to add to this: Mormon baptism is not recognized by the Catholic Church as a valid baptism.