Thought you might have heard it before
Do Lutherans save themselves?
- Thread starter NoelFitz
- Start date
- Status
I read in this thread from Phil19034:
And while the Orthodox once questioned the Catholic Church regarding whether the Anglicans had valid Sacraments, they are now 100% in agreement with Catholics that Anglicans do not have valid sacraments.
I must apologise for misunderstanding what this meant. I thought it claimed that Catholics believe that Anglicans do not have valid sacraments. Of course, it means nothing of the kind. It obviously means baptism is not a sacrament, because a priest is not the minister. According to this reasoning marriage is not a sacrament, since the priest is not the minister, as pointed out by JonNC.
Phil19034 points out:
The phrase I used “valid sacraments” was referring to priestly sacraments - sacraments that require a deacon, priest and/or bishop…
It should have been obvious to me that ‘valid sacraments’ did not ‘mean sacraments that are valid’, but ‘some sacraments’.
I had forgotten we live in the fake news post truth world.
And while the Orthodox once questioned the Catholic Church regarding whether the Anglicans had valid Sacraments, they are now 100% in agreement with Catholics that Anglicans do not have valid sacraments.
I must apologise for misunderstanding what this meant. I thought it claimed that Catholics believe that Anglicans do not have valid sacraments. Of course, it means nothing of the kind. It obviously means baptism is not a sacrament, because a priest is not the minister. According to this reasoning marriage is not a sacrament, since the priest is not the minister, as pointed out by JonNC.
Phil19034 points out:
The phrase I used “valid sacraments” was referring to priestly sacraments - sacraments that require a deacon, priest and/or bishop…
It should have been obvious to me that ‘valid sacraments’ did not ‘mean sacraments that are valid’, but ‘some sacraments’.
I had forgotten we live in the fake news post truth world.
P
phil19034
Guest
No, that’s not quite right.
In the Latin Church, each of the Seven Sacraments have an Ordinary Minister and some have extraordinary ministers.
Baptism: Ordinary Minister = Deacon, Priest & Bishop. Extraordinary Minister = any other person selected by the Bishop or any one in emergency situations. When not an emergacy then the baptism is valid but not licit.
In other words, when a person is baptized by someone other than a Bishop, Priest or Deacon they are validly baptized, but not necessarily illicitly baptized.
Confirmation: Ordinary Minister = Bishop; Extraordinary Minster = Priest
Eucharist (consecration): Ordinary Minster = Priest & Bishop; Extraordinary Minster = none
Distribution of Holy Communion: Ordinary Minster = Deacon, Priest, or Bishop; Extraordinary Minster = Instituted Acolyte and appointed lay people if there are not enough clergy and Instituted Acolytes
Reconciliation: Ordinary Minster = Priest & Bishop; Extraordinary Minster = none
Anointing of the Sick: Ordinary Minster = Priest & Bishop; Extraordinary Minster = none
Holy Orders: Ordinary Minster = Bishop; Extraordinary Minster = none
Holy Matrimony: Ordinary Minster = Bride & Groom; Extraordinary Minster = none
Baptism and Holy Matrimony are valid in Protestant Churches because the Extraordinary Minster for Bapitsm is anyone and the Ordinary Minster for Matrimony is the Bride & Groom.
God Bless
A
AugustTherese
Guest
How many Catholics, even Catholic priests, think that for the sacrament of marriage to be valid, it must be witnessed by a deacon/priest/bishop and must take place inside the confines of a Catholic Church.
P
phil19034
Guest
Well, if one spouse is person is Catholic, then yes, the marriage must be witnessed by a deacon, priest or bishop in order to be valid unless there is a dispensation or Radical Sanation to retroactively declare the marriage valid.phil19034:
How many Catholics, even Catholic priests, think that for the sacrament of marriage to be valid, it must be witnessed by a deacon/priest/bishop and must take place inside the confines of a Catholic Church.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
I must admit I am a little confused. I was under the impression that the sacrament of marriage is valid predicated upon the ordinary ministers of the sacrament, i.e. the bride and groom. Am I missing something?
Last edited:
AugustTherese,
many thanks.
I now know ‘valid sacraments’ does not mean ‘valid sacraments’, but ‘priestly sacraments’.
I also now know the sacrament of marriage need not take place in a Catholic Church, it can even take plane in an airplane - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-42736504
P
phil19034
Guest
No. “Valid Sacarment” means the sacrament took affect.AugustTherese:
AugustTherese,
many thanks.
I now know ‘valid sacraments’ does not mean ‘valid sacraments’, but ‘priestly sacraments’.
I also now know the sacrament of marriage need not take place in a Catholic Church, it can even take plane in an airplane - http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-42736504
You are thinking Licit Sacrament.
An “invalid sacrament” means the sacrament never took place.
An “illicit sacrament” means the sacrament took place was not legally performed.
A “priestly sacrament” has nothing to do with its validity, as a priest can perform an invalid sacrament - though one would hope it was not on purpose.
For any priest or bishop (other than the Pope) to perform a wedding on an airplane, without grave cause, would be a valid sacrament, but an illicit sacrament.
This is because, except for just cause, all marriages must be witnessed by a member of the Catholic Clergy and witnessed amoung the Body of Christ (which is why they must be in a Church) except for just cause.
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
The missing part is that the marriage must be viewed as valid by the Church in order for it to be valid.phil19034:
I must admit I am a little confused. I was under the impression that the sacrament of marriage is valid predicated upon the ordinary ministers of the sacrament, i.e. the bride and groom. Am I missing something?
The Church assumes that ALL marriages are valid unless there is cause to doubt the validly.
When a Catholic does not follow the rules for the Sacarment of Matrimony, it objectively indicates that the person either doesn’t properly understand the Sacarment of Matrimony or disagrees with the Churches teachings regarding of the Sacarment of Matrimony.
So when a Catholic married outside the Church, without permission, the Church assumes the person didn’t have a proper understanding of the sacrament, therefore the Church assumes the sacrament didn’t take hold.
The cure is to receive sacramental prep and a convalidation (redoing the vows in the Catholic Church) or receive a Radical Sanation from the Bishop. The convalidation is easy, engage in some sacramental prep and get married all over again. The Church will view this “new” marriage as the date of your marriage, not the date of the legal marriage.
A Radical Sanation is where the Bishop (he may be assisted by a priest) interviews the Catholic to make sure he/she understood the the Sacarment properly before getting married and simply didn’t understand the rules. If satisfied, then the Radical Sanation is given and the marrraige becomes valid, recognizing the date of the legal marriage as the date of the sacrament.
I pray this helps.
A
AugustTherese
Guest
Just researched it. You are absolutely right!AugustTherese:
Well, if one spouse is person is Catholic, then yes, the marriage must be witnessed by a deacon, priest or bishop in order to be valid unless there is a dispensation or Radical Sanation to retroactively declare the marriage valid.phil19034:
How many Catholics, even Catholic priests, think that for the sacrament of marriage to be valid, it must be witnessed by a deacon/priest/bishop and must take place inside the confines of a Catholic Church.
It seems I am not the only one confused. However we are wandering far from the original focus.
.
I had thought that every valid contract of marriage between Christians (Catholic or not) is a sacrament, and the contracting partners minister the sacrament to each other. In exceptional cases a valid marriage can occur without the assistance of a priest (see Ott p. 468).
I see in Wikipedai, so it must be correct
The priest has merely the role to “assist” the spouses in order to ensure that the marriage is contracted in accord with canon law, and is supposed to attend whenever it is possible. A competent layperson may be delegated by the Church, or may just attend in place of the priest, if it is impractical to have a priest attending. In the event that no competent layperson is found, the marriage is valid even if done in the presence of two witnesses alone.[97] For example, in May 2017, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments granted a bishop’s request that a nun be granted permission to officiate at a marriage ceremony in Quebec because of a shortage of priests.[98]
Marriage in the Catholic Church - Wikipedia
.
I had thought that every valid contract of marriage between Christians (Catholic or not) is a sacrament, and the contracting partners minister the sacrament to each other. In exceptional cases a valid marriage can occur without the assistance of a priest (see Ott p. 468).
I see in Wikipedai, so it must be correct
The priest has merely the role to “assist” the spouses in order to ensure that the marriage is contracted in accord with canon law, and is supposed to attend whenever it is possible. A competent layperson may be delegated by the Church, or may just attend in place of the priest, if it is impractical to have a priest attending. In the event that no competent layperson is found, the marriage is valid even if done in the presence of two witnesses alone.[97] For example, in May 2017, the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments granted a bishop’s request that a nun be granted permission to officiate at a marriage ceremony in Quebec because of a shortage of priests.[98]
Marriage in the Catholic Church - Wikipedia
S
steido01
Guest
Careful on that one. Early Church and Catholic history would seem to have some extraordinary exceptions (see Popes Boniface IX, Martin V and Innocent VIII). And at least some sound, traditional Catholics still hold to the possibility of priests ordaining priests in some instances (albeit unlikely and all but impossible today). Only relaying what some learned Roman Catholics have taught me.
P
phil19034
Guest
Well, I’m only quoting what was I was taught when I took an online course from St. Charles Borromeo Seminary designed for lay catechists.phil19034:
Careful on that one. Early Church and Catholic history would seem to have some extraordinary exceptions (see Popes Boniface IX, Martin V and Innocent VIII). And at least some sound, traditional Catholics still hold to the possibility of priests ordaining priests in some instances (albeit unlikely and all but impossible today). Only relaying what some learned Roman Catholics have taught me.
P
phil19034
Guest
Yes, but if the bride or groom didn’t mean their vows as they were saying them, it’s invalid. Or if there is another impediment to marriage, it’s invalid.
Just like they Church does with non-Catholic Baptisms, the Catholic Church assumes that all marriages are valid unless there is cause to make them doubt it.
When the Church doubts the validity of a Baptism, the Church performs a “conditional baptism.” When the Church is doubts the validity of a marriage they perform a convalidation.
When two non-Catholic marry, the Church has no just cause to suspect that the couple didn’t understand what they were doing when they were married (assuming the couple follows any rules their religion has for marriage). The Church would never investigate or question their marriage unless they applied for an annulment.
However, when one or two Catholics marry outside the Church, without sacramental prep and a dispensation, the Church is automatically suspect of the Catholic party’s understanding of the Sacrament, therefore suspect of their ability to properly administer the sacrament. If the Sacrament was indeed valid, a Radial Sanation can be issued and signed by the Bishop recognizing the validity of the sacrament (or the couple simply does the simple thing and recites their vows in front of a clergy member).
I hope I’m making sense.
Last edited:
S
steido01
Guest
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you. I don’t presume to tell Catholics what they believe. Just noting history… Ludwig Ott would seem to be a generally trustworthy source for Catholic teachings.
P
phil19034
Guest
Assuming that it’s true: My totally uneducated guess on that would be that the priests most likely had some extraordinary permission via letter to do that in absence of a Bishop. But today, such a need would be non-existent.
God Bless
S
steido01
Guest
Indeed, in most documented cases they did.
As I said, “unlikely and all but impossible today.”
Which Protestants?
0
0104
Guest
Well at one time I went to a southern Baptist Church and they believed Mary was a good person. But your right which Protestants, they have about 40,000 Protestants out there with different beliefs.
- Status