Who can administer sacraments?

[susanlo]

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.

I suppose my understanding based on the teaching/tradition I received is more so in line with Cyprian and the 87 Bishops from North Africa.

 

[susanlo]

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

I think that it is an important point because I think this is when a change occurred in understanding. At the time many (if not most) of the Bishops believed that only those baptized in the Christian Church could baptize new converts. This was debated for about a century and then it was agreed that anyone - even “heretics” - could validly baptize people. Why did this understanding come about?

Why can an atheist validly perform a baptism and the Holy Spirit will provide all of the ‘graces’ and spiritual benefits that go with baptism, but if a devout Christian anoints a sick person with oil there won’t be any sacramental graces because the devout Christian hasn’t been ordained? How do we know that the Holy Spirit acts through baptism no matter who performs it - and the Holy Spirit is incapable of providing graces in communion or anointing of the sick when performed by anyone except ordained clergy?

 

[Wesrock]

I think that it is an important point because I think this is when a change occurred in understanding. At the time many (if not most) of the Bishops believed that only those baptized in the Christian Church could baptize new converts. This was debated for about a century and then it was agreed that anyone - even “heretics” - could validly baptize people. Why did this understanding come about?

Why can an atheist validly perform a baptism and the Holy Spirit will provide all of the ‘graces’ and spiritual benefits that go with baptism, but if a devout Christian anoints a sick person with oil there won’t be any sacramental graces because the devout Christian hasn’t been ordained? How do we know that the Holy Spirit acts through baptism no matter who performs it - and the Holy Spirit is incapable of providing graces in communion or anointing of the sick when performed by anyone except ordained clergy?

CCC 1256 In case of necessity, any person, even someone not baptized, can baptize, if he has the required intention. the intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes, and to apply the Trinitarian baptismal formula. the Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

The intention needs to be to will to do what the Church does. I think we need to separate someone who in the long term has no belief but who, in the moment, is moved by a faith that comes from God. Maybe they don’t hold it. Maybe it’s passing, and the next day they say it was nothing but an odd feeling or an act of charity. But in that moment there was the tiniest sliver of faith that made the baptism valid.

And in addition to that, God does desire that all should be saved, he provided us with the formula of Baptism. In another sense, why should His actions be limited in such a way? God has promised us His action through the sacraments. Why cannot he work where faith is little according to his promises?

 

[rcwitness]

I suppose my understanding based on the teaching/tradition I received is more so in line with Cyprian and the 87 Bishops from North Africa.

Thanks.
I think a very significant question would need to be: What would a “heretical” group be, that Pope Stephen and Cyprian had in mind?

Obviously, the issue has to be broken down with specific understanding, right?

For example, the Catholic Church recognizes Baptisms from separated Christians, as valid, while those performed by sects such as JW and Mormon are not simply a heretical group.