Valid sacraments

  • Thread starter Thread starter coco2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

coco2

Guest
I am wondering why the Church accepts some sacraments from Protestant denominations as valid, but the Eucharist is never acceptable elsewhere. I am referring to churches who believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, not those who think it is merely a symbol. Baptism is accepted, Marriage is accepted, but not Eucharist. I understand that when a minister’s “orders” are not considered to be valid, transubstantiation cannot take place. Just wondering why they “orders” are ok for other sacraments.
 
coco2 said:
I am wondering why the Church accepts some sacraments from Protestant denominations as valid, but the Eucharist is never acceptable elsewhere. I am referring to churches who believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, not those who think it is merely a symbol. Baptism is accepted, Marriage is accepted, but not Eucharist. I understand that when a minister’s “orders” are not considered to be valid, transubstantiation cannot take place. Just wondering why they “orders” are ok for other sacraments.
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that the Church does sometimes accept other Eucharists as valid for the people within those religions, in the same way that two baptized Catholics must be married within the Catholic church (not an Anglican, Baptist, or Presbyterian church) for their marriage to be recognized as valid. However, two Baptists have a valid marriage when they are married within a Baptist church. Similarly, an Anglican Eucharist might be valid for Anglicans (who only have a part of the truth), but it is not acceptable for Catholics, as we have the full truth. At least, that is how I understand it???
 
coco2 said:
I am wondering why the Church accepts some sacraments from Protestant denominations as valid, but the Eucharist is never acceptable elsewhere. I am referring to churches who believe in the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, not those who think it is merely a symbol. Baptism is accepted, Marriage is accepted, but not Eucharist. I understand that when a minister’s “orders” are not considered to be valid, transubstantiation cannot take place. Just wondering why they “orders” are ok for other sacraments.
Click to expand...
Because for Baptism and Marriage a sacred (ordained) minister (bishop, priest, or deacon) is not required. Anyone may baptise, ordained or lay, male or female, Catholic or non-Catholic Christian, non-Christian, agnostic or atheist. They must use the proper form (I baptise you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit), proper matter (water), and the right intent - the intent to do what the Church does, i.e. baptise the person.

The ministers of the sacrament of marriage are the bridegroom and bride, not the minister. So, even if a couple marry in a Catholic Church, according to the Church’s liturgy, in the presence of one of the Church’s ministers, and two other witnesses, it is the couple who administer the sacrament. Therefore, if a man and woman marry in any religious or civil ceremony then the Church recognises their marriage because they have administered the sacrament to each other.

As you rightly point out, the Eucharist is a separate matter. Only a Eucharistic minister (bishop or priest) may celebrate or concelebrate Mass and confect the Eucharist.
 
ClamDigger said:
It is my understanding that the Church does sometimes accept other Eucharists as valid for the people within those religions, in the same way that two baptized Catholics must be married within the Catholic church (not an Anglican, Baptist, or Presbyterian church) for their marriage to be recognized as valid. However, two Baptists have a valid marriage when they are married within a Baptist church. Similarly, an Anglican Eucharist might be valid for Anglicans (who only have a part of the truth), but it is not acceptable for Catholics, as we have the full truth. At least, that is how I understand it???
Click to expand...
I’m sure this is not true of the Eucharist.

Only a validly ordained Priest of the Catholic Church may affect a real change so that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.

Twenty thousand anglican priests could say the words together and it would still be bread.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

-Tim-
 
Matthew_Holford said:
The ministers of the sacrament of marriage are the bridegroom and bride, not the minister. So, even if a couple marry in a Catholic Church, according to the Church’s liturgy, in the presence of one of the Church’s ministers, and two other witnesses, it is the couple who administer the sacrament. Therefore, if a man and woman marry in any religious or civil ceremony then the Church recognises their marriage because they have administered the sacrament to each other.
Click to expand...
I don’t think this is the case. My aunt was married in a civil ceremony and she had to be “re-married” in the Church before she could receive the Eucharist.
 
TimothyH said:
I’m sure this is not true of the Eucharist.

Only a validly ordained Priest of the Catholic Church may affect a real change so that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ.

Twenty thousand anglican priests could say the words together and it would still be bread.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
The only reason why I think this might apply to the Eucharist as well is because we recognize the Eastern Orthodox Eucharist as valid within their religion, so I think it might apply outside of the Orthodox Church? Once again, though, I am not positive that my understanding is correct.
 
ClamDigger said:
I don’t think this is the case. My aunt was married in a civil ceremony and she had to be “re-married” in the Church before she could receive the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
That depends on whether or not your aunt and/or her husband, were Catholic. If either of them was, then they needed to abide by the Roman Catholic Church’s rules, which is that marriages are celebrated in front of a priest or deacon (or lay person appointed by the bishop in certain circumstances). A dispensation from canonical form may be obtained from the bishop – it would allow them to marry elsewhere but is usually only granted where one of the party is non-Catholic.
 
ClamDigger said:
The only reason why I think this might apply to the Eucharist as well is because we recognize the Eastern Orthodox Eucharist as valid within their religion, so I think it might apply outside of the Orthodox Church? Once again, though, I am not positive that my understanding is correct.
Click to expand...
The Orthodox have valid orders because they have apostolic succession.
 
Only the baptism of the protestants is accepted as valid sacrament. Baptism can be validly administered by any individual, even by an unbaptized on: only water, the Trinitarian formula and proper intention is needed. Above that the marriage is administered by the spouses themselves. Certain rules apply.

Any other sacraments can be administered only by validly ordained person: the orders by bishop, the rest by priest. Protestants do not have validly ordained bishops and priests.
 
ClamDigger said:
The only reason why I think this might apply to the Eucharist as well is because we recognize the Eastern Orthodox Eucharist as valid within their religion, so I think it might apply outside of the Orthodox Church? Once again, though, I am not positive that my understanding is correct.
Click to expand...
The Orthodox Eucharist is valid, period. Not only “within their religion.” Mind you that we Catholics view them of being in the same religion as we are. The only reason we cannot receive Communion from the Orthodox on a regular basis, aside from them letting us, is their view of the Papacy. Receiving Communion is not only about receiving Christ, but also professing unity with the Church. So receving from the Orthodox means we are professing unity with the Orthodox faith which includes the view of the Papacy.

But the Catholic Church does allow us to receive under certain instances, and if the priest of the Orthodox would allow us.
 
laszlo said:
Only the baptism of the protestants is accepted as valid sacrament. Baptism can be validly administered by any individual, even by an unbaptized on: only water, the Trinitarian formula and proper intention is needed. Above that the marriage is administered by the spouses themselves. Certain rules apply.

Any other sacraments can be administered only by validly ordained person: the orders by bishop, the rest by priest. Protestants do not have validly ordained bishops and priests.
Click to expand...
You’re forgetting from the RC point of view, marriage is administered by the spouses. So Protestant marriages are valid for Protestants. Only a Catholic cannot avail of a Protestant marriage because Canon Law forbids us to do so without seeking dispensation.
 
ClamDigger said:
I don’t think this is the case. My aunt was married in a civil ceremony and she had to be “re-married” in the Church before she could receive the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is correct. The sacrament of marriage is confered by the bride and groom.

But if Catholics, the bride and groom must follow canon law regarding who witnesses the marriage and where it takes place. They did not do so.
 
Phemie said:
That depends on whether or not your aunt and/or her husband, were Catholic. If either of them was, then they needed to abide by the Roman Catholic Church’s rules, which is that marriages are celebrated in front of a priest or deacon (or lay person appointed by the bishop in certain circumstances). A dispensation from canonical form may be obtained from the bishop – it would allow them to marry elsewhere but is usually only granted where one of the party is non-Catholic.
Click to expand...
You learn something new every day! Thank you! 🙂

Oh, and they are both Catholic. Well, she is… I’m not sure about him since their divorce some 20 odd years ago. Hahaha
 
ConstantineTG said:
The Orthodox Eucharist is valid, period. Not only “within their religion.” Mind you that we Catholics view them of being in the same religion as we are. The only reason we cannot receive Communion from the Orthodox on a regular basis, aside from them letting us, is their view of the Papacy. Receiving Communion is not only about receiving Christ, but also professing unity with the Church. So receving from the Orthodox means we are professing unity with the Orthodox faith which includes the view of the Papacy.

But the Catholic Church does allow us to receive under certain instances, and if the priest of the Orthodox would allow us.
Click to expand...
I see! Too bad they don’t feel the same way about our Eucharist. 😦
 
ClamDigger said:
I don’t think this is the case. My aunt was married in a civil ceremony and she had to be “re-married” in the Church before she could receive the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Was your aunt Catholic? If so then she had to follow Canon Law which states that Catholic marriages must be done in a Church and witnessed by a representative of the Church (which in most cases is an ordained individual, a deacon, priest, or bishop).
 
ByzCath said:
Was your aunt Catholic? If so then she had to follow Canon Law which states that Catholic marriages must be done in a Church and witnessed by a representative of the Church (which in most cases is an ordained individual, a deacon, priest, or bishop).
Click to expand...
Yes, this has already been established. Thank you though! I’m glad I checked into this forum! I’ve learned a few new things here! 🙂
 
ClamDigger said:
I don’t think this is the case. My aunt was married in a civil ceremony and she had to be “re-married” in the Church before she could receive the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
Your original question was generic and I tried to explain why marriage outside the Catholic Church can still be valid. You may no mention of these specific matters. It is not possible to comment because you haven’t provided sufficient information. As others have said I can only surmise that your aunt may have been a Catholic. If she is then if she married outside the Church without being dispensed from canonical form, the Church would consider her marriage invalid.
 
Matthew_Holford said:
Your original question was generic and I tried to explain why marriage outside the Catholic Church can still be valid. You may no mention of these specific matters. It is not possible to comment because you haven’t provided sufficient information. As others have said I can only surmise that your aunt may have been a Catholic. If she is then if she married outside the Church without being dispensed from canonical form, the Church would consider her marriage invalid.
Click to expand...
As I said, other posters have already made this clear to me. Also, if you would have read one of my later posts, I did say that she was Catholic. Thank you anyways though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top