Non-Catholics - What does the word "Sacrament" mean to you?

[Wesley7]

A Sacrament is something you receive from God to help you in your walk with Him.

 

[Roblox84]

Baptists usually don’t refer to him precisely for that reason. Tertullian believed that baptism remitted sins… so he advised to delay it until older or even near to the point of death. Now, his opinion was idiotic and nonsensical. However, it does show, as you said, that the church has always been united on baptism as a means of God’s grace and the beginning of the Christian life.

It may be getting late or i’m just skimmed through the post to quickly. Was Tertullian the founder of the Baptist movement? And why don’t Baptists refer to him?

 

[SteveVH]

From yours and Annas (name removed by moderator)ut the posts show that children were being baptized even before the bible and protestant churchs were around. So where do all the negative comments of babtizing children come from these day’s?

IMO, the longer time goes on, the further Protestant doctrine deviates from original doctrine. All of the sacraments are evident in the writing of the early Church. It is the reason for this thread. I just think it is interesting to find the different meanings circulating around through the various churches.

 

[Matariel]

It may be getting late or i’m just skimmed through the post to quickly. Was Tertullian the founder of the Baptist movement? And why don’t Baptists refer to him?

No, Turtullian was an early Church Father of the Catholic Church (A.D. 200s); he later became apostate and join a heretical group known as the Montanists.

 

[Matariel]

What church did you belong to when Protestant, if I may ask?

Many: First, Nazarene (baptized by the Nazarene denomination) then Wesleyan, then two Independent “non-denominational” groups, then shortly an Episcopalian, then a Continuing Anglican, and then finally a Catholic Christian.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Many: First, Nazarene (baptized by the Nazarene denomination) then Wesleyan, then two Independent “non-denominational” groups, then shortly an Episcopalian, then a Continuing Anglican, and then finally a Catholic Christian.

Oh…Nazarene I won’t comment, except to say if Catholics are accused of believing in works righteousness… The Nazarenes are works righteousness on steroids.

There’s no more personal relationship that one can have with God than to receive His body and blood every week!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

So were the Nazarenes mentioned in the Mitchell report with the other roid users?

Oh…Nazarene I won’t comment, except to say if Catholics are accused of believing in works righteousness… The Nazarenes are works righteousness on steroids.

There’s no more personal relationship that one can have with God than to receive His body and blood every week!

 

[TriuneUnity]

That’s very interesting. So who were these Anabaptists? Is this were today’s baptists, southern baptists, independent baptists, etc… come from? Also, do you know what was the reasoning for the rejection of infant baptism? Because from what I read in the previous post it was just some guy that wanted to delay it. Why did so many people choose to follow him after a thousand years of doing it another way?

Not really…no, The Anabaptists rejected infant Baptism like Baptists do… However, they were never considered part of the evangelical movement. Most of them rejected the Lutheran, Reformed and Anglican emphasis on sola Fide and sola Scriptura. Some didn’t even use Scripture, but believed the Holy Spirit spoke to them directly. The Amish and Mennonites are the descendents of the Anabaptist movement.

The Baptists, again, rejected infant baptism, but they arose out of the Reformed churches, so they were “Protestant” on doctrines like sola fide and sola scriptura.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Referring to the OP: I choose to use Augustine’s defintiion of a sacrament which was “a visible sign of an invisible reality.” They are external manifestations of sanctifying grace and are life-lines from God to change our lives, save us from damnation, and bring us closer to His Divinity. That’s my take.

 

[Matariel]

Oh…Nazarene I won’t comment, except to say if Catholics are accused of believing in works righteousness… The Nazarenes are works righteousness on steroids.

Well, I think this may be somewhat true, but not all of 'em. And plus, even the ones with this mentality WILL deny it and say that it’s not their doctrine.

There’s no more personal relationship that one can have with God than to receive His body and blood every week!

Amen! I just recieved the holy Body and Blood a few hours earlier.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Well, I think this may be somewhat true, but not all of 'em. And plus, even the ones with this mentality WILL deny it and say that it’s not their doctrine.

Right… but that’s true of a lot of fundamentalism. They will deny it on paper, and then say if you dance or have a beer, you’re in danger of hellfire lol.

 

[Matariel]

There’s no more personal relationship that one can have with God than to receive His body and blood every week!

Hey Triune, do you mind if I ask you a off-topic question? What do Lutherans think about denominations that don’t believe their communion is the true Body and Blood? Do they actually receive it, even though they don’t even believe that what’s happening? Or do only denominations that believe it to be so get it?

 

[TriuneUnity]

Hey Triune, do you mind if I ask you a off-topic question? What do Lutherans think about denominations that don’t believe their communion is the true Body and Blood? Do they actually receive it, even though they don’t even believe that what’s happening? Or do only denominations that believe it to be so get it?

Good question, Matariel. A little background here. First, we have to establish what true communion is. Paul tells us: “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. (1 Cor. 11:23-29)”

What do we believe Paul to mean when he writes these words? Another way of putting it is, “What is the sacrament of Holy Communion? It is the true body and blood or our Lord Jesus Christ together with the bread and wine, instituted by Christ for us Christians to eat and to drink. (Luther’s Small Catechism)”
The initial words spoken by Jesus instituting the Lord’s Supper make this possible. Because his word is efficacious and because he commanded us to continue to celebrate his Supper in this way, the same body and blood which were present on that first Maundy Thursday are present for us today.
To have true communion, then, it is “imperative that the congregation unmistakably declare its intention to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.” A congregation does that by repeating what Jesus did. Without this intent and without these words, the communicants would receive no more than bread and wine. With these words the body and blood of Christ become really present in the bread and wine. The Reformed churches do not believe that a communicant receives the true body and blood of the Lord, but merely a symbol in the bread and wine. When we talk about the “Reformed,” we usually lump all of Christianity that is not Catholic, Orthodox, or Lutheran into their camp. Their consecration of the Lord’s supper is not according to Christ’s direction. They have no intention whatsoever of celebrating the Lord’s Supper as our Lord desired. Because their teaching and their practice are incorrect they are not celebrating the Lord’s Supper. Because the Reformed publicly declare that they do not have the intention of celebrating the Supper with the Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood, but pronounce such a sacrament an abomination, they are in fact not celebrating the Supper Christ gave to his Church. The Reformed doctrine is an actual disavowal and renunciation of Christ’s words of institution. Hence they have no word of God for their Supper; He did not institute a Supper in which bread and wine are distributed and received as symbols of the absent body and blood of Christ.
In a sense, the Lord’s supper for the Reformed is much like Baptism in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is for Latter Day Saints. The Latter Day Saints may use the words, but they are not baptizing in the name of the triune God. Certainly the Reformed Lord’s Supper is not as crass as the baptism of the Latter Day Saints, but the basic principle is still the same. They do not receive the Lord’s Supper because they are not celebrating the Lord’s Supper according to Christ’s institution.

The Roman Catholic Church as well as the Eastern churches have a proper consecration according to what Scripture says. We cannot deny that their consecration practice is exactly what Jesus commanded in the original institution of the Lord’s Supper (the distribution of Christ’s actual body and blood for the forgiveness of sins).

 

[Matariel]

Good question, Matariel. A little background here. First, we have to establish what true communion is. Paul tells us: “For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, ‘This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes. Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep. (1 Cor. 11:23-29)”

What do we believe Paul to mean when he writes these words? Another way of putting it is, “What is the sacrament of Holy Communion? It is the true body and blood or our Lord Jesus Christ together with the bread and wine, instituted by Christ for us Christians to eat and to drink. (Luther’s Small Catechism)”
The initial words spoken by Jesus instituting the Lord’s Supper make this possible. Because his word is efficacious and because he commanded us to continue to celebrate his Supper in this way, the same body and blood which were present on that first Maundy Thursday are present for us today.
To have true communion, then, it is “imperative that the congregation unmistakably declare its intention to celebrate the Lord’s Supper.” A congregation does that by repeating what Jesus did. Without this intent and without these words, the communicants would receive no more than bread and wine. With these words the body and blood of Christ become really present in the bread and wine. The Reformed churches do not believe that a communicant receives the true body and blood of the Lord, but merely a symbol in the bread and wine. When we talk about the “Reformed,” we usually lump all of Christianity that is not Catholic, Orthodox, or Lutheran into their camp. Their consecration of the Lord’s supper is not according to Christ’s direction. They have no intention whatsoever of celebrating the Lord’s Supper as our Lord desired. Because their teaching and their practice are incorrect they are not celebrating the Lord’s Supper. Because the Reformed publicly declare that they do not have the intention of celebrating the Supper with the Real Presence of Christ’s body and blood, but pronounce such a sacrament an abomination, they are in fact not celebrating the Supper Christ gave to his Church. The Reformed doctrine is an actual disavowal and renunciation of Christ’s words of institution. Hence they have no word of God for their Supper; He did not institute a Supper in which bread and wine are distributed and received as symbols of the absent body and blood of Christ.
In a sense, the Lord’s supper for the Reformed is much like Baptism in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit is for Latter Day Saints. The Latter Day Saints may use the words, but they are not baptizing in the name of the triune God. Certainly the Reformed Lord’s Supper is not as crass as the baptism of the Latter Day Saints, but the basic principle is still the same. They do not receive the Lord’s Supper because they are not celebrating the Lord’s Supper according to Christ’s institution.

The Roman Catholic Church as well as the Eastern churches have a proper consecration according to what Scripture says. We cannot deny that their consecration practice is exactly what Jesus commanded in the original institution of the Lord’s Supper (the distribution of Christ’s actual body and blood for the forgiveness of sins).

I see… the Catholic Church, of course, always uses the Words of Our Lord and believes in the Real Presence of Christ.

You’re right about the Mormon baptism; so then, Lutherans also do not recognize Mormon baptism as Baptism?

 

[TriuneUnity]

I see… the Catholic Church, of course, always uses the Words of Our Lord and believes in the Real Presence of Christ.

Yes, absolutely. Catholics receive the Body and Blood of Christ when they participate in Holy Communion. This adds context to Luther’s statement: “I would rather drink pure blood with the Pope than mere wine with Ulrich Zwingli.” While we believe Catholics are wrong about transubstantiation… it is an incidental. It does not change their intent to celebrate the Lord’s Supper as Christ instituted it. Nor does their view of the eucharist as a sacrifice. We do think it likely that they may receive it unworthily because of the sacrificial view, but it isn’t true in every individual case. The Reformed on the other hand, can’t even be accused of receiving the Lord’s Supper unworthily, because they are not receiving the Lord’s Supper at all.

You’re right about the Mormon baptism; so then, Lutherans also do not recognize Mormon baptism as Baptism?

No, we don’t. Christ instituted baptism as baptism in the name of the one God in Trinity. Mormons “baptize” in the name of gods. A Mormon entering the Lutheran church would be baptized, because they were never baptized to begin with.

 

[Anna_Scott]

When we talk about the “Reformed,” we usually lump all of Christianity that is not Catholic, Orthodox, or Lutheran into their camp. Their consecration of the Lord’s supper is not according to Christ’s direction.

TriuneUnity,

Don’t Forget Episcopal/Anglican. Isn’t there a reciprocal agreement between the Lutheran Church and the Episcopal Church regarding Baptism and Confirmation?

Yes, absolutely. Catholics receive the Body and Blood of Christ when they participate in Holy Communion. This adds context to Luther’s statement: “I would rather drink pure blood with the Pope than mere wine with Ulrich Zwingli.” While we believe Catholics are wrong about transubstantiation… it is an incidental. It does not change their intent to celebrate the Lord’s Supper as Christ instituted it. Nor does their view of the eucharist as a sacrifice. We do think it likely that they may receive it unworthily because of the sacrificial view, but it isn’t true in every individual case. The Reformed on the other hand, can’t even be accused of receiving the Lord’s Supper unworthily, because they are not receiving the Lord’s Supper at all.

I asked my Episcopal Priest about transubstantiation. He said the Episcopal Church does not get into the Aristotelian view of substance and matter in the Eucharist. He said that just as he accepts that Christ is both man and God; he accepts that the bread and wine are both “bread and wine” and the “body and blood of Christ”–that the essence of Christ crosses into the bread and wine (paraphrased.)

The Episcopal Priest does reserve the consecrated bread and wine to administer the Sacrament to those who are home bound or ill. The consecrated bread and wine is never disposed of. It is consumed. This is actually against the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church, which says the bread and wine is not to be reserved. That is one of the reasons I have said this particular Episcopal Priest is more Catholic than Protestant.

Anna

 

[schaick]

Referring to the OP: I choose to use Augustine’s defintiion of a sacrament which was “a visible sign of an invisible reality.” They are external manifestations of sanctifying grace and are life-lines from God to change our lives, save us from damnation, and bring us closer to His Divinity. That’s my take.

That is so close to:
A) specifically commanded by Christ;
B) a promise of grace, and;
C) is accompanied by an earthly element.

Baptism - water and Eucharist - bread and wine I get as a sacrament.

Can anyone tell me of any earthly sign, visible sign in the sacraments of the Catholic Church?

Reconciliation

Confirmation - [at our church we actually place a red stole on our confirmed that is then given to them]

Marriage-
Ephesians 5:31"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh." 32This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.

I saw that verse listed as a reason for marriage being a sacrament but it is more about joining the church then the marriage. Is there another Bible verse?

Holy Orders

Anointing of the Sick - oil?

 

[TriuneUnity]

TriuneUnity,

Don’t Forget Episcopal/Anglican. Isn’t there a reciprocal agreement between the Lutheran Church and the Episcopal Church regarding Baptism and Confirmation?

With the Anglicans, it is going to depend on the congregation and/or branch of the Anglican church. Some Anglican congregations are Reformed in their view of the Lord’s Supper. The 39 Articles are explicitly Reformed in their view. From the Articles: “The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith.” Note the spiritualizing of the presence and the mode of reception (faith, versus the mouth). This is Calvin’s view. However, I know many Anglican congregations that do not affirm the Articles on this point, but hold to a view that parallels the Lutheran/Catholic view. We would consider those churches to be celebrating true communion.

We recognize the vast majority of baptisms, including Anglican. The only ones we wouldn’t accept would be Mormon or JW, as well as a few other minor sects. We don’t consider confirmation a sacrament.

I asked my Episcopal Priest about transubstantiation. He said the Episcopal Church does not get into the Aristotelian view of substance and matter in the Eucharist.

That would be the basis of our disagreement with Rome on this point. We simply don’t define the presence along philosophical lines.

He said that just as he accepts that Christ is both man and God; he accepts that the bread and wine are both “bread and wine” and the “body and blood of Christ”–that the essence of Christ crosses into the bread and wine (paraphrased.)

Then the Supper would be valid in your church because it is being celebrated as Christ instituted it.

The Episcopal Priest does reserve the consecrated bread and wine to administer the Sacrament to those who are home bound or ill. The consecrated bread and wine is never disposed of. It is consumed. This is actually against the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church, which says the bread and wine is not to be reserved. That is one of the reasons I have said this particular Episcopal Priest is more Catholic than Protestant.

Anna

That’s a good thing! Yes, the 39 Articles are definitely opposed to catholic teaching on the sacraments.

 

[Bbigam]

I was raised non-denominational Protestant until age 9, then from 9-24 was Free Methodist, in a conservative Methodist-ish family. I also attended Wesley-Holiness type school for college and graduate school. In the non-denom communities, I don’t recall ever hearing the word sacrament. Baptism and Communion/Lord’s Supper (I didn’t know the word Eucharist) probably would have been described as ordinances that were symbolic but important signs of faith commanded by Christ. I was baptized (Believer’s Baptism) at the age of 7 in a swimming pool; the proper Trinitarian formula was used.

In the Free Methodist communities, Baptism and Holy Communion were considered sacraments but that was never clearly defined for us. According to the Book of Discipline, Baptism is a symbol of the new covenant of grace, signifying acceptance of the benefits of atonement and declaring faith in Christ as Savior. It could be done for infants or Believer’s Baptism, at the family’s preference. The Lord’s Supper is listed as being a partaking of the body and blood of Christ by those who worthily receive, but only in a “heavenly and spiritual manner.” It was typically done monthly.

Methodist groups don’t officially call Marriage a sacrament but a lot of people in my United Methodist-ish graduate school considered it a sacrament. I suppose it’s officially an ordinance.

Now I know what the Sacraments really are and that there are 7 - and I’ll be Confirmed and make my First Communion at Easter, and have already been to Confession!

 

[Anna_Scott]

I was raised non-denominational Protestant until age 9, then from 9-24 was Free Methodist, in a conservative Methodist-ish family. I also attended Wesley-Holiness type school for college and graduate school. In the non-denom communities, I don’t recall ever hearing the word sacrament. Baptism and Communion/Lord’s Supper (I didn’t know the word Eucharist) probably would have been described as ordinances that were symbolic but important signs of faith commanded by Christ. I was baptized (Believer’s Baptism) at the age of 7 in a swimming pool; the proper Trinitarian formula was used.

In the Free Methodist communities, Baptism and Holy Communion were considered sacraments but that was never clearly defined for us. According to the Book of Discipline, Baptism is a symbol of the new covenant of grace, signifying acceptance of the benefits of atonement and declaring faith in Christ as Savior. It could be done for infants or Believer’s Baptism, at the family’s preference. The Lord’s Supper is listed as being a partaking of the body and blood of Christ by those who worthily receive, but only in a “heavenly and spiritual manner.” It was typically done monthly.

Methodist groups don’t officially call Marriage a sacrament but a lot of people in my United Methodist-ish graduate school considered it a sacrament. I suppose it’s officially an ordinance.

Now I know what the Sacraments really are and that there are 7 - and I’ll be Confirmed and make my First Communion at Easter, and have already been to Confession!

Bbigam,

I appreciate your comments regarding Methodist beliefs. Funny, I was just about to do an online search to compare Methodist, Lutheran, and Episcopal/Anglican beliefs regarding the Sacraments.

Congratulations on being “almost Catholic.”

Anna