Who can administer sacraments?

[susanlo]

As I understand Catholic teaching, baptism can be validly administered by any non-Catholic Christian. Even an atheist following the proper formula can administer a valid baptism according to Catholicism. However the other 6 sacraments need to be administered by Catholic clergy. How was it determined that baptism can be effective when administered by any person, however other sacraments are invalid unless they are administered by the appropriate member of the clergy?

 

[Marie5890]

As I understand Catholic teaching, baptism can be validly administered by any non-Catholic Christian. Even an atheist following the proper formula can administer a valid baptism according to Catholicism.** However the other 6 sacraments need to be administered by Catholic clergy.** How was it determined that baptism can be effective when administered by any person, however other sacraments are invalid unless they are administered by the appropriate member of the clergy?

It’s my understanding that it’s the bride and groom who are the ministers of holy matrimony, the ones who confer the grace.

If I am wrong I am sure a more knowledgable Catholic in this area will correct me

 

[Bill_Martin]

It’s my understanding that it’s the bride and groom who are the ministers of holy matrimony, the ones who confer the grace.

If I am wrong I am sure a more knowledgable Catholic in this area will correct me

I believe this is correct. In fact, it is possible for a couple to marry without a priest or deacon (in rare circumstances).

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P40.HTM

If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses only:

1/ in danger of death;

2/ outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month.

 

[Church_Militant]

Here is a response from the Ask An Apologist forum that should be helpful Susan.
What can’t a deacon do?

Further, I found the following response from Fr. Eric Filmer that may help with your thinking with regard to the difference between the priesthood of believers and the ministerial priesthood.
What is the difference between the Common Priesthood and Ministerial Priesthood?

 

[CatholicsRock1]

This will probably boil down to an interesting discussion regarding the validity of a sacrament and the licit nature of its action. There is quite the difference between valid and licit.

Vaild- The correct formula (i.e. "I Baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; the words of consecration; etc.), Substance (i.e. water for baptism; correctly prepared hosts for communion; etc), and minister (see list below) were utilized. All three elements must be present CORRECTLY in order for a sacrament to be considered valid.

Licit- A fancy word for “approved by the Church”.

There is such a thing as a VALID-illicit sacrament, however, there is no such thing as an Invalid-licit sacrament.

Using your example, anyone is allowed to administer the Sacrament of Baptism validly, provided that the person administering follows the formula. However, though all Baptisms are valid (with the correct formula), not all Baptisms are licit. Only in cases of grave emergency should someone who is not ordained carry out the Sacrament of Baptism.

If an individual is on their deathbed, converts, and a priest or deacon is not able to be present, someone else may administer the Sacrament of Baptism (something I have done many times with my work with Hospice patients). This Baptism is recognized as both valid (provided the formula was followed) and licit (provided that it was absolutely necessary).

However, if, on a normal day, I take my baby nephew and use the formula for Baptism in a kitchen sink, and there is no emergency, the sacrament may still be valid…but will by no means be licit.

The ministers for valid-licit sacraments are as follows:
Baptism- Ordained ministers, unless in extreme circumstances
Communion- Ordinarily a priest or a deacon, or those appointed by appropriate authority
Confirmation- Bishop or a delegated priest
Anointing of the Sick- Priest
Confession- Priest
Holy Orders- Bishop
Holy Matrimony- The Couple! Interestingly enough, the priest or deacon just acts as the Church’s witness and to bless their life together, not as the minister

 

[Jesus_Is_God_1]

In the 3rd century there was a controversy among St. Cyprian of Carthage and Pope Stephen I as to whether those baptized in heretical groups and those who lapsed from the Church should be rebaptized. Cyprian believed they indeed needed to be rebaptized, but Pope Stephen believed otherwise due to evidence from the earlier traditions and the belief that baptism can only be given once. Cyprian view became more prevalent among the Alexandrian’s and Stephen’s view among the Romans. Ultimately, Pope Stephen’s view won out and was accepted by the Council of Nicaea and was ultimately confirmed by the Council of Trent.

It is my understanding that Cyprian’s view is still held among those who are in communion with the See of Alexandria i.e. the Coptic Orthodox Church as well as it’s descendants the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Church. They typically don’t accept Catholic or Protestant baptism and even many baptism’s done in the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, the Catholic Church, in accordance with what has been affirmed at Trent, believes baptism can only be given once and those who are baptized by heretical groups have been given valid baptism as long as it’s done in the name of the Trinity under the right intentions.

 

[Wannano]

In the 3rd century there was a controversy among St. Cyprian of Carthage and Pope Stephen I as to whether those baptized in heretical groups and those who lapsed from the Church should be rebaptized. Cyprian believed they indeed needed to be rebaptized, but Pope Stephen believed otherwise due to evidence from the earlier traditions and the belief that baptism can only be given once. Cyprian view became more prevalent among the Alexandrian’s and Stephen’s view among the Romans. Ultimately, Pope Stephen’s view won out and was accepted by the Council of Nicaea and was ultimately confirmed by the Council of Trent.

It is my understanding that Cyprian’s view is still held among those who are in communion with the See of Alexandria i.e. the Coptic Orthodox Church as well as it’s descendants the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and the Eritrean Orthodox Church. They typically don’t accept Catholic or Protestant baptism and even many baptism’s done in the Eastern Orthodox Church. However, the Catholic Church, in accordance with what has been affirmed at Trent, believes baptism can only be given once and those who are baptized by heretical groups have been given valid baptism as long as it’s done in the name of the Trinity under the right intentions.

Just curious as to what the “right intentions” may be, that phrase is a new condition for me.

 

[susanlo]

Thank you for all of this good information so far. I wasn’t aware about how the marriage sacrament was given.

I am curious how it was determined around 300 AD that non-Christians or “heretics” could validly baptize an individual, yet none of the other sacraments could be validly administered by these groups. What is different about baptism that the Holy Spirit can act and provide whatever graces or spiritual benefits are believed to be bestowed with baptism when administered by outside groups, but if these same groups anoint with oil or practice communion these sacraments are invalid. How do we know what God sees as valid and what he sees as invalid?

 

[rcwitness]

Just curious as to what the “right intentions” may be, that phrase is a new condition for me.

The intentions must simply be to do what the Church believes.

 

[rcwitness]

Thank you for all of this good information so far. I wasn’t aware about how the marriage sacrament was given.

That was a recent thing for me as well. The priesthood of the couple makes the sacrament valid. The minister is still appropriate for meeting lawful conditions, for a Catholic member, as far as I know.

I am curious how it was determined around 300 AD that non-Christians or “heretics” could validly baptize an individual, yet none of the other sacraments could be validly administered by these groups. What is different about baptism that the Holy Spirit can act and provide whatever graces or spiritual benefits are believed to be bestowed with baptism when administered by outside groups, but if these same groups anoint with oil or practice communion these sacraments are invalid. How do we know what God sees as valid and what he sees as invalid?

Baptism is the first Sacrament of initiation. Normally, it is the obligation to seek the Universal Church, but various conditions and situations are afforded the believer, on account of not witholding the grace of Baptism to anyone who seeks. I think this would be the reason behind the Sacred Tradition.

As for: How do we know what God sees as valid and what he sees as invalid?

This is the question behind most questions here. We believe the Church in Communion and affirmed with the See of Rome, has the highest authority in Jesus.

 

[GKC]

The intentions must simply be to do what the Church believes.

Applicable to all sacraments; facere quod facit ecclesia. More precisely, to do what the Church does.

Along with valid minister, intent, form, matter and subject (subject in ordination or matrimony) to validly confect a sacrament.

 

[Todd977]

The ministers for valid-licit sacraments are as follows:
Baptism- Ordained ministers, unless in extreme circumstances
Communion- Ordinarily a priest or a deacon, or those appointed by appropriate authority
Confirmation- Bishop or a delegated priest
Anointing of the Sick- Priest
Confession- Priest
Holy Orders- Bishop
Holy Matrimony- The Couple! Interestingly enough, the priest or deacon just acts as the Church’s witness and to bless their life together, not as the minister

I think your entry on Communion might be a little misleading. The Eucharist must first be confected by a bishop or priest before the ordinary minister (a bishop, priest or deacon) or extraordinary minister (an appointed layperson) can give Communion to the faithful.

 

[GKC]

I think your entry on Communion might be a little misleading. The Eucharist must first be confected by a bishop or priest before the ordinary minister (a bishop, priest or deacon) or extraordinary minister (an appointed layperson) can give Communion to the faithful.

Same thought occurred to me. But then I thought of a deacon administering the pre-consecrated sacrament, on occasion, and let it pass.

 

[Wesrock]

Thank you for all of this good information so far. I wasn’t aware about how the marriage sacrament was given.

I am curious how it was determined around 300 AD that non-Christians or “heretics” could validly baptize an individual, yet none of the other sacraments could be validly administered by these groups.

It wasn’t an issue until it created controversy within the Church and was addressed then. Once the dispute arose, they referred to the traditions they had received and to scripture. You could say things were already in practice, but the theology around it required more exploring and development so that understanding and agreement could spread. I’ll refer to the Arian controversy as an example. Scripture and traditions supported Trinitarianism, but Trinitarianism needed further theological development and clarification. Would you say Trinitarianism was determined at Nicea and Constantinople? Or would you say it was defended and the human understanding of the theology around it developed and improved?

 

[CatholicsRock1]

I think your entry on Communion might be a little misleading. The Eucharist must first be confected by a bishop or priest before the ordinary minister (a bishop, priest or deacon) or extraordinary minister (an appointed layperson) can give Communion to the faithful.

Right, going back and reading my post, it does seem quite confusing. I think we’re pretty much saying the same thing, I was just incredibly vague. Thanks for clearing this up!

Pax

 

[Church_Militant]

Thank you for all of this good information so far. I wasn’t aware about how the marriage sacrament was given.

I am curious how it was determined around 300 AD that non-Christians or “heretics” could validly baptize an individual, yet none of the other sacraments could be validly administered by these groups. What is different about baptism that the Holy Spirit can act and provide whatever graces or spiritual benefits are believed to be bestowed with baptism when administered by outside groups, but if these same groups anoint with oil or practice communion these sacraments are invalid. How do we know what God sees as valid and what he sees as invalid?

You misspeak Susan. Heretics do not administer valid baptism as is the case even today with JWs and Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals who do not hold to Trinitarian Christian belief.

Most n-C Christians are not heretics as such or else their baptisms would not be valid.

Further, why would pagans even care about administering a Catholic sacrament? That makes no sense and at that time would not have happened. The more likely scenario is a catechumen might baptize another on their deathbed under persecution. These are only cases of extreme circumstance.

I think you’re making too much of an “what if” scenario that won’t happen.

 

[susanlo]

You misspeak Susan. Heretics do not administer valid baptism as is the case even today with JWs and Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals who do not hold to Trinitarian Christian belief.

Most n-C Christians are not heretics as such or else their baptisms would not be valid.

Further, why would pagans even care about administering a Catholic sacrament? That makes no sense and at that time would not have happened. The more likely scenario is a catechumen might baptize another on their deathbed under persecution. These are only cases of extreme circumstance.

I think you’re making too much of an “what if” scenario that won’t happen.

In the 3rd century there was debate about whether those joining the church who had been baptized in “heretic” cults needed to receive a baptism when joining the Christian Church. Bishop of Rome Stephen said that they should not be baptized because the “heretic” baptism was valid. Bishop of Carthage Cyprian and many North African Bishops had a major controversy and stated that they needed to be baptized by the Christian Church because the baptism by heretics was not valid since the baptizer lacked the Holy Spirit to give in baptism. This is what I meant by “heretic” baptism.

I don’t know of many non-Christians baptizing people today. I think it could happen in an emergency situation. I had always been taught that only baptized believers could baptize others.

I wonder why the Holy Spirit can work through baptism administered by Christian laity and even non-Christians, but the Holy Spirit can’t work through the other sacraments unless they are given by certain clergy. Why is baptism different?

 

[rcwitness]

In the 3rd century there was debate about whether those joining the church who had been baptized in “heretic” cults needed to receive a baptism when joining the Christian Church. Bishop of Rome Stephen said that they should not be baptized because the “heretic” baptism was valid. Bishop of Carthage Cyprian and many North African Bishops had a major controversy and stated that they needed to be baptized by the Christian Church because the baptism by heretics was not valid since the baptizer lacked the Holy Spirit to give in baptism. This is what I meant by “heretic” baptism.

I don’t know of many non-Christians baptizing people today. I think it could happen in an emergency situation. I had always been taught that only baptized believers could baptize others.

I wonder why the Holy Spirit can work through baptism administered by Christian laity and even non-Christians, but the Holy Spirit can’t work through the other sacraments unless they are given by certain clergy. Why is baptism different?

So your tradition (“I had always been taught”) seems to agree with Cyprian or Stephen?

The Holy Spirit is invoked by the calling on the name of the Lord. The Spirit is not given through the Baptizer, that is Confirmation.

 

[Wesrock]

You misspeak Susan. Heretics do not administer valid baptism as is the case even today with JWs and Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals who do not hold to Trinitarian Christian belief.

Most n-C Christians are not heretics as such or else their baptisms would not be valid.

Further, why would pagans even care about administering a Catholic sacrament? That makes no sense and at that time would not have happened. The more likely scenario is a catechumen might baptize another on their deathbed under persecution. These are only cases of extreme circumstance.

I think you’re making too much of an “what if” scenario that won’t happen.

I think you are wrong in this. Heretics can baptize, so long as they baptize in the name of God, being the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Technically, “once saved, always saved”, “sola scriptura,” and “sola fide” are considered heresies, if I understand it right, though it’s not very ecumenical to speak that way.

The issue with unitarians, JW, LDS, is that their baptisms are not to what we would consider God and/or follow odd formulations.

 

[Church_Militant]

I think you are wrong in this. Heretics can baptize, so long as they baptize in the name of God, being the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Technically, “once saved, always saved”, “sola scriptura,” and “sola fide” are considered heresies, if I understand it right, though it’s not very ecumenical to speak that way.

The issue with unitarians, JW, LDS, is that their baptisms are not to what we would consider God and/or follow odd formulations.

You’re misreading my post. I said pretty much what exactly you just did.

The cults you named cannot validly baptize due to not being Trinitarian and they do indeed qualify as heretics. Most of the rest of n-C Christians do not.

The controversy that Susan speaks of has long ago been settled so it’s a moot point.