Why does the Catholic Church accept protestant baptisms as valid sacraments yet not protestant communion?

[ReturningToRome]

Even though all Protestant Christians invoke the trinity and use water in baptisms, their beliefs differ widely concerning its efficacy. Yet I believe it is true that they are all accepted by the Catholic Church. On the other hand, even when a Protestant doctrine of communion as a sacrament is very similar to Catholicism, such as the Lutheran view, it is not a valid sacrament in the eyes of the Catholic Church. I think the latter is because of apostolic succession. I’m grateful, but I would like to be able to explain why Baptism is not similarly affected by apostolic succession.

 

[LongJohnSilver]

I think because the Catholic requirements for a valid baptism are all met by the Protestant version of baptism, whereas the protestant communion is in essence very different from and contrary to the Catholic communion.

 

[mardukm]

Even though all Protestant Christians invoke the trinity and use water in baptisms, their beliefs differ widely concerning its efficacy. Yet I believe it is true that they are all accepted by the Catholic Church. On the other hand, even when a Protestant doctrine of communion as a sacrament is very similar to Catholicism, such as the Lutheran view, it is not a valid sacrament in the eyes of the Catholic Church. I think the latter is because of apostolic succession. I’m grateful, but I would like to be able to explain why Baptism is not similarly affected by apostolic succession.

The validity of the Eucharist irrefragibly depends on the existence of a valid priesthood, for it is only a valid priest, acting in place of Christ, who can effect the miracle and offer the Oblation.

Likewise, apostolic succession is a function of a valid priesthood by virtue of the laying on of hands. I am aware that Protestantism proposes the concept of apostolic succession through Faith - i.e., a layperson can basically self-ordain if he/she feels called to lead others into their “orthodox” belief, and their is no necessity for the laying on of hands (I am also aware that there are different degrees of this concept, not quite so drastic as to accept the self-ordination paradigm).

Baptism, in distinction, did not depend on a valid priesthood. One can infer this from Canon 58 of Carthage (419 A.D.), which was accepted by the Fourth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils. This Canon requests the Apostolic See (Rome) to accept the orders of the Donatists, though it was already an accepted norm that their Baptisms were valid.

Hence, since Protestants don’t have valid orders, their Eucharist has no Sacramental reality. Nevertheless, their Baptisms are valid and they are Christians.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

I think because the Catholic requirements for a valid baptism are all met by the Protestant version of baptism, whereas the protestant communion is in essence very different from and contrary to the Catholic communion.

I think this poster has it right. When I was coming into the church, I remember the priest asking me if my church used the words “I baptize you in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” and that would have made it valid.

I admit, I am not an expert on this.

 

[revert_jen]

Marduk’s response was great, but I want to put in my $0.02 anyway.

Baptism does not require a member of the ordained priesthood, and the confection of the Eucharist does. It’s not a question of theology, but a question of ability. For example, I personally believe completely in the Catholic theology of the Eucharist, but I could not confect the Eucharist myself because I am not an ordained priest and therefore I do not have the ability to do so. The question of why God has ordained that this should be so is a discussion all on its own.
CCC #1256:

The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.

I think the last sentence also answers the question of why God has allowed it.

–Jen

 

[KathleenGee]

We pray for our separated brethren at all Masses throughout the world. The Protestants are using the Catholic rite and in essence baptizing their followers into the Mystical Body of Christ.

If they decide to come into full communion of the Church, they are given no instruction except to profess the Creed and sacraments, because they are already baptized into the Catholic Church. However, many join the Rite of Christian Initiation (RCIA) to have a professional understanding of the sacraments, the nature and mission of the Church, and hear some of the responses by Catholics who are members of the local parish.

 

[Barbkw]

To be in communion with the Catholic Church a Christian must think “think like a Catholic”.

By that, I’m refering to two of the other six Sacraments outside of Baptism. In particular, Reconciliation and Eucharist.

Not all protestant denominations properly baptise with water & correct wording and therefore some are not valid in the Catholic Church.

In addition, most Lutheran churches do not teach transubstantiation (the Real Presence - that the bread and the wine become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ).

 

[KathleenGee]

Barb…

Correct…the wording of the Baptism requires it follow the rite’s norm, otherwise it is invalid. And some belief systems, although they say they believe in Christ, have a different understand and belief system that does not give fruit to live in the Catholic Church. They must be baptized.

People cannot receive the Sacraments without faith and proper disposition. Baptism incorporates them into the Mystical Body, but to participate in the full life of the Church they must profess faith, and this does include reception of the sacraments as outward signs of the true living Christ, otherwise reception without faith and proper disposition is a sacrilege.

 

[jpaul1953]

Even though all Protestant Christians invoke the trinity and use water in baptisms, their beliefs differ widely concerning its efficacy. Yet I believe it is true that they are all accepted by the Catholic Church. On the other hand, even when a Protestant doctrine of communion as a sacrament is very similar to Catholicism, such as the Lutheran view, it is not a valid sacrament in the eyes of the Catholic Church. I think the latter is because of apostolic succession. I’m grateful, but I would like to be able to explain why Baptism is not similarly affected by apostolic succession.

Dear Returning to Rome,

Simply because Protestants do use water and Baptize the way the Bible states…In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Protestants’ teaching on baptism is Biblical but their teaching on the Eucharist is not.

Short and sweet.

Joe

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

In the case of life or death situation the CC will recognize a baptism by anyone who does it in the name of the blessed Trinity. There are different circumstances that may require the CC not to rebaptise an individual but to validate the baptism.

For instance if the question of the understanding of the revealed Trinity doctrine was rejected by the individual conducting the baptism or not believed in as set forth from the Apostolic Traditions defined from the early Church councils. Or if it could not be proven that the baptism was done in the name of the Trinity as commissioned by Jesus Christ. A case by case would need clarification for a valid baptism. It would be difficult to generalize all “protestant” baptisms are valid, because those claiming to the protestant tradition are not truly protestant for example JW’s and Mormons who believe in their man made doctrine of a trinity but not a Catholic biblical Trinity, would constitute an invalid baptism, that would need validation, not neccessarily rebaptism.

The key here is life or death situation; Those outside of the communion in the body of Christ (Catholic Church), and baptise their communities using the Trinitarian formula, can be seen as a matter of life and death situation outside the Catholic Church, although from a protestant perspective is not viewed that way. Thus the Catholic church would recognize the protestant baptism outside of her communion. Yet those protestant baptisms that are very close to the Catholic Traditions are never questioned about their validity and only require documentation to be accepted as valid.

The Eucharist can only be confected by valid biblical holy orders which is the bishop or priest. Without this valid priesthood established in Jesus Christ himself, you have no valid Eucharist.

The other subject of great importance to the Eucharist is for one to have the Catholic biblical faith as handed down to us from the scriptures and Apostolic Tradition, to be able to discern the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist less the curse befalls one from
1Cor.11:27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.
30
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.

No one can partake of this valid Eucharist without their wedding garment “baptism”, less they be bound and tied then cast out from the “Wedding supper of the Lamb”. Some protestant (evangelicals, non catholics) denominations do not believe in baptism as a sacrament which “saves you now” (1Peter 3:21 This prefigured baptism, which saves you now.) but only a symbol of their profession of their Christian faith. That is why it is very important to arrive at the correct understanding of each baptism from protestantism, so that one may partake of the wedding feast of the lamb. Without this seal on their forehead, they lack protection, and cannot enter without their wedding garment “baptism” into the bridegrooms (Jesus) wedding feast.

Matthew 22:2
"The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who gave a wedding feast 2 for his son.
**6 But when the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment.
12
He said to him, ‘My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?’ But he was reduced to silence.
13
7 Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’ 14
Many are invited, but few are chosen." **

ReturningToRome;7267985]Even though all Protestant Christians invoke the trinity and use water in baptisms, their beliefs differ widely concerning its efficacy. Yet I believe it is true that they are all accepted by the Catholic Church. On the other hand, even when a Protestant doctrine of communion as a sacrament is very similar to Catholicism, such as the Lutheran view, it is not a valid sacrament in the eyes of the Catholic Church. I think the latter is because of apostolic succession. I’m grateful, but I would like to be able to explain why Baptism is not similarly affected by apostolic succession.

 

[simspt]

In the case of life or death situation the CC will recognize a baptism by anyone who does it in the name of the blessed Trinity. There are different circumstances that may require the CC not to rebaptise an individual but to validate the baptism.

For instance if the question of the understanding of the revealed Trinity doctrine was rejected by the individual conducting the baptism or not believed in as set forth from the Apostolic Traditions defined from the early Church councils. Or if it could not be proven that the baptism was done in the name of the Trinity as commissioned by Jesus Christ. A case by case would need clarification for a valid baptism. It would be difficult to generalize all “protestant” baptisms are valid, because those claiming to the protestant tradition are not truly protestant for example JW’s and Mormons who believe in their man made doctrine of a trinity but not a Catholic biblical Trinity, would constitute an invalid baptism, that would need validation, not neccessarily rebaptism.

The key here is life or death situation; Those outside of the communion in the body of Christ (Catholic Church), and baptise their communities using the Trinitarian formula, can be seen as a matter of life and death situation outside the Catholic Church, although from a protestant perspective is not viewed that way. Thus the Catholic church would recognize the protestant baptism outside of her communion. Yet those protestant baptisms that are very close to the Catholic Traditions are never questioned about their validity and only require documentation to be accepted as valid.

The Eucharist can only be confected by valid biblical holy orders which is the bishop or priest. Without this valid priesthood established in Jesus Christ himself, you have no valid Eucharist.

The other subject of great importance to the Eucharist is for one to have the Catholic biblical faith as handed down to us from the scriptures and Apostolic Tradition, to be able to discern the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist less the curse befalls one from
1Cor.11:27
Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord. 12
28
A person should examine himself, 13 and so eat the bread and drink the cup.
29
For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body, eats and drinks judgment 14 on himself.
30
That is why many among you are ill and infirm, and a considerable number are dying.

No one can partake of this valid Eucharist without their wedding garment “baptism”, less they be bound and tied then cast out from the “Wedding supper of the Lamb”. Some protestant (evangelicals, non catholics) denominations do not believe in baptism as a sacrament which “saves you now” (1Peter 3:21 This prefigured baptism, which saves you now.) but only a symbol of their profession of their Christian faith. That is why it is very important to arrive at the correct understanding of each baptism from protestantism, so that one may partake of the wedding feast of the lamb. Without this seal on their forehead, they lack protection, and cannot enter without their wedding garment “baptism” into the bridegrooms (Jesus) wedding feast.

Matthew 22:2
"The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who gave a wedding feast 2 for his son.
**6 But when the king came in to meet the guests he saw a man there not dressed in a wedding garment.
12
He said to him, ‘My friend, how is it that you came in here without a wedding garment?’ But he was reduced to silence.
13
7 Then the king said to his attendants, ‘Bind his hands and feet, and cast him into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’ **14
Many are invited, but few are chosen."

if one is baptized by a pastor using the trinitarian formula but who is simultaneously very anti catholic would one get a conditional baptism when entering the CC or would this have to be determined individually?

 

[1ke]

Baptism does not require a member of the ordained priesthood, and the confection of the Eucharist does.

This is not entirely accurate.

The ordinary minister of Baptism is the Bishop, priests, or deacon. Because Baptism is necessary for salvation, the Church has given permission for those without ordination to baptize in cases of necessity.

Can. 861 §1. The ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, a presbyter, or a deacon, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 530, n. 1.

§2. When an ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or another person designated for this function by the local ordinary, or in a case of necessity any person with the right intention, confers baptism licitly. Pastors of souls, especially the pastor of a parish, are to be concerned that the Christian faithful are taught the correct way to baptize.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

A valid baptism does not require the disposition of ones personal views of the Catholic Church, pro or con. The correct Trinitarian formula performed is what is sought out to maintain it’s validity, outside of the Catholic church. Again a case by case would need to be assessed by ones local priest and or bishop to gain its validity in the Catholic Church.

Peace be with you

simspt;7269151]if one is baptized by a pastor using the trinitarian formula but who is simultaneously very anti catholic would one get a conditional baptism when entering the CC or would this have to be determined individually?

 

[mardukm]

The correct Trinitarian formula performed is what is sought out to maintain it’s validity, outside of the Catholic church. Again a case by case would need to be assessed by ones local priest and or bishop to gain its validity in the Catholic Church.

Not just the correct Trinitarian formula, but also an orthodox doctrine on the Trinity is required. That’s evident from the early Church (e.g, though the baptism of Novatians and Arians were accepted, the baptism of Montanists and Paulianists were not). A modern example is a (relatively) recent decision in the U.S. rejecting the validity of Mormon baptism, though it uses a Trinitarian formula.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Even though all Protestant Christians invoke the trinity and use water in baptisms, their beliefs differ widely concerning its efficacy. Yet I believe it is true that they are all accepted by the Catholic Church. On the other hand, even when a Protestant doctrine of communion as a sacrament is very similar to Catholicism, such as the Lutheran view, it is not a valid sacrament in the eyes of the Catholic Church. I think the latter is because of apostolic succession. I’m grateful, but I would like to be able to explain why Baptism is not similarly affected by apostolic succession.

I’m always curious about what Catholics think of this particular quote that gets thrown around a lot:

“I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the Eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.”–Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratizinger) in a letter to Lutheran Bishop Johannes Hanselmann.

 

[mardukm]

I’m always curious about what Catholics think of this particular quote that gets thrown around a lot:

“I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the Eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord in a Lutheran Lord’s Supper.”–Pope Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratizinger) in a letter to Lutheran Bishop Johannes Hanselmann.

I think all he is acknowledging is that Lutherans believe in the Real Presence. Christ (Who always saves) is really present at a Lutheran Lord’s Supper because of the belief of the congregation.

However, I don’t believe the statement means he is acknowledging that:

1. there is a change in the elements like there is in the Catholic and Orthodox Eucharists;
2. Lutherans have valid orders;
3. Lutheran pastors can validly offer the Holy Oblation;
4. the Eucharistic presence of Christ in (or rather with) the Lutheran bread and wine persists outside of a Lutheran service (as occurs for Catholic and Orthodox Eucharists).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hello mardukm, my post #10 agrees with you, that the Trinitarian formula although used by some non catholics (protestants), the understanding of the Trinity as set forth by the ECC’s, or as you put it very well an “Orthodox” view of the Trinity.

Peace be with you

mardukm;7271143]Not just the correct Trinitarian formula, but also an orthodox doctrine on the Trinity is required. That’s evident from the early Church (e.g, though the baptism of Novatians and Arians were accepted, the baptism of Montanists and Paulianists were not). A modern example is a (relatively) recent decision in the U.S. rejecting the validity of Mormon baptism, though it uses a Trinitarian formula.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Nicea325]

Even though all Protestant Christians invoke the trinity and use water in baptisms, their beliefs differ widely concerning its efficacy. Yet I believe it is true that they are all accepted by the Catholic Church. On the other hand, even when a Protestant doctrine of communion as a sacrament is very similar to Catholicism, such as the Lutheran view, it is not a valid sacrament in the eyes of the Catholic Church. I think the latter is because of apostolic succession. I’m grateful, but I would like to be able to explain why Baptism is not similarly affected by apostolic succession.

Because if it is done under the Trinitarian Formula and water is used it is a valid baptism. Now the Eucharist entirely different because many non-Catholic Christians do not have a valid ordination of the priesthood. Likewise,for many it is only a symbol and for Catholics it is the Real Presence of Our God.

 

[mardukm]

Hello mardukm, my post #10 agrees with you, that the Trinitarian formula although used by some non catholics (protestants), the understanding of the Trinity as set forth by the ECC’s, or as you put it very well an “Orthodox” view of the Trinity.

Peace be with you

I think that’s the first time I did not read through a whole post. Mea culpa! I want to appeal to the fact that it was late as my invalid excuse.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[jessep28]

I think there is less discrepancy with the command to Baptize in the name of the Triune God vs. the Words of Institution that govern the Lord’s Supper.