ChristiansUnite Forums

This post is not for the purpose of bringing "heat" to the subject of the Seven Sacraments, but bringing "light" -- the light of God's Word in order to "prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good".

The Seven Sacraments of the RCC -- Baptism, Confirmation (or Chrismation), the Eucharist, Penance, the Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders and Matrimony -- are the foundation of their liturgy and faith: 1113 The whole liturgical life of the Church revolves around the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments. There are seven sacraments in the Church: Baptism, Confirmation or Chrismation, Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony.

If these are indeed teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, then every Christian should accept and adhere to them.  On the other hand, if they are a mixture of truth and error, or pure error examined in the light of God's Word, then Roman Catholics should ask themselves "What is Truth?"

To cover this subject properly, we will need to look at each sacrament separately, therefore there will be eight parts to this post. In this post we will address "sacraments" in general. Again, we wil stay away from "name-calling" and focus strictly on the doctrinal issues -- truth vs error. Hopefully, Catholics on this Board will examine the Scriptures carefully, not "formulated interpretations" of the RCC.

The quotations are taken directly from the authoritative source of Catholic teaching -- the Catechism of the Catholicm Church (CCC), 2nd Ed.

This on-line Second Edition English Translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church includes the corrections promulgated by Pope John Paul II on 8 September 1997. These corrections to the English text of the Catechism of the Catholic Church were made to harmonize it with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II on the same date.

The paragraph numbers are beside the quotations for ease of reference.  Here is what it says about the sacraments in general, so let's examine each paragraph :

1210 Christ instituted the sacraments of the new law. There are seven: Baptism, Confirmation (or Chrismation), the Eucharist, Penance, the Anointing of the Sick, Holy Orders and Matrimony. The seven sacraments touch all the stages and all the important moments of Christian life: they give birth and increase, healing and mission to the Christian's life of faith. There is thus a certain resemblance between the stages of natural life and the stages of the spiritual life.

Above is the claim that the sacraments come directly from Christ.  Yet when I open my Bible (KJV) I do not find the word "sacrament" in the New Testament. We know that the Lord commanded water baptism by immersion, since that is the literal meaning of the Greek word baptizo.  But it is never called " a sacrament" or "a means of grace" in Scripture.

1131 The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions.

Next we have the claim that "divine life [the life of God, which is the same as eternal life] is dispensed to us" by the sacraments. If this is indeed the case, then there would be extensive teaching on this in the NT. However, there is no such teaching.  Instead we find that Divine life [the new birth] is dispensed to us by God's grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His finished work on Calvary: "But as many as RECEIVED HIM, to them gave He power be become THE SONS OF GOD, even to them that BELIEVE ON HIS NAME: WHICH WERE BORN, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, BUT OF GOD" (Jn. 1:12,13).

950 Communion of the sacraments. "The fruit of all the sacraments belongs to all the faithful. All the sacraments are sacred links uniting the faithful with one another and binding them to Jesus Christ, and above all Baptism, the gate by which we enter into the Church. The communion of saints must be understood as the communion of the sacraments. . . . The name 'communion' can be applied to all of them, for they unite us to God. . . . But this name is better suited to the Eucharist than to any other, because it is primarily the Eucharist that brings this communion about."

Is baptism "the gate by which we enter into the Church"?  We have already seen in the above Scripture, that to become a "son of God" [which is the same as becoming a part of God's family, which is also the Church of redeemed saints] we must receive Christ and believe on His name.  So, how could anyone teach that water baptism is the gateway to salvation? [We will address the misunderstanding of Mark 16:15,16 separately].

1525 Thus, just as the sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist form a unity called "the sacraments of Christian initiation," so too it can be said that Penance, the Anointing of the Sick and the Eucharist as viaticum constitute at the end of Christian life "the sacraments that prepare for our heavenly homeland" or the sacraments that complete the earthly pilgrimage.

Can the sacraments prepare one "for our heavenly homeland"?  This is a most important and critical question.  Scripture teaches that those who are saved by grace are eternally secure in Christ.  They have been washed in the blood of the Lamb, their sins have been forgiven, they have been clothed with the righteousness of Christ, gifted with the gift of eternal life and the gift of the Holy Spirit, and have God dwelling within them. That is why all believers can say with Paul "To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord" (2 Cor. 5:8).

We can already see the great variance of sacramental teaching from the Word of God.  We will continue with Part II.

PART 1 OF 2

I will take this approach in the light you claim it is intended, but you must acknowledge that before you can properly discuss the sacraments or critique them (as I know you intend to do) you must have a proper understanding of the teachings of the Church; and not rely on some misconception of them as arises from prejudice and bias.  
In just your first paragraph I can see already that you will have trouble being sensitive to the true teachings of the Church on these matters as you resort to an appeal to authority that is different at its very base than the Catholic Church uses.  In your exhorting us to prove all things in the light of God’s word I know you mean the scriptures, while Catholic’s accept that God’s Word come to us not only in written form but in oral Tradition and through the Magisterium based on the protection of the Holy Spirit it was promised.  As Saint Augustine of Hippo stated:  "I would not believe the Gospel unless moved thereto by the Church."

Once again you want to limit this discussion to the truth as you see it relying on sola scriptura which Catholic’s know to be a man made error, still I will continue on with you because I know that at the very least I can show that no Catholic teaching is contrary to anything that is in scripture, though we may have to go to the other sources of God’s Word for a complete development of each sacrament.

Already you start with the strawman attacks.  It is going to be hard to accept that you are sincerely looking for truth if you continue as you have begun with arguments that any simple child can see carry no merit.  

It makes no difference that you don’t find the word sacrament in the scriptures.  You don’t find the word trinity in the scriptures either.  That does not mean it is not a valid concept.  Sacrament is technical term used to group the items of instruction and discipline Christ taught us to follow.  Just because the term doesn’t appear in the New Testament does not mean the concept does not appear.


No you do not know this.  You only assume that a strict literal meaning has to be applied to the Greek.  Your assumption is not binding.  There are many examples of baptisms in the New Testament that occurred at people’s homes, when no large body of water could have been available, so baptism must have been by pouring in those instances.


The issue of the word sacrament has already been covered and the issue of “means of grace” needs to be addressed before we continue on this path of yours since it is clear you do not understand the Church’s teachings on this doctrine and yet you insist on thinking yourself prepared to critique the role of sacraments in a Christian’s life.

However it is clear that we receive God’s favor at Baptism, because the Baptism we as Christians go through is not just the Baptism of John but the Baptism of Jesus Christ and He will Baptize use with the Holy Spirit.  

Mat 3:11  I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:

Tell me how does on receive the Holy Spirit and not assume they have received favor from God?

END OF PART 1

Sure there is, and if you were truly trying to put light on the subject you would do as Aquinas did when he wrote in rebuttal of others doctrine.  That is at least he would represent their argument as he understood it and then show why their arguments as he stated them were wrong.  But you don’t want to do even that much.  You just want to personally claim that there is no argument in favor of the doctrine of sacramental grace, implying that Catholics believe it for no reason at all.  So I will have to do your job for you, just so you can be kept on the track of searching for the light in these issues.

Examples of Divine Life connections for each sacrament:

Baptism
John 3:5  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

We are instructed to be baptized to be saved

Reconciliation
Act 3:19  Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;

We are instructed to repent to be saved and this must be understood along with the proper method of displaying the repentance

Jam 5:16  Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

and the authority to forgive sins on earth

Joh 20:23  Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Confirmation
Act 8:17  Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

We are instructed through this example and others to receive the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands.  Does anyone believe they can be saved without having received the Holy Spirit?

Holy Eucharist

Joh 6:53  Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.

We are instructed to participate in the remembrance of the Lord’s Sacrifice to have life.

Matrimony  and Holy Orders are not required for salvation, obviously because not all people become Priest or get married.  Still there are graces provided to those who choose to lead these types of lives properly.

Matrimony
Eph 5:21-32 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.   Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.   For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.  Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.  So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.  For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.  For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.   This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

We are instructed that the marriage union should be revered as the union between Christ and His Church because it is established by God.

Holy Orders

2Ti 1:6  Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.

1Ti 4:14  Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.

We are instructed that we those who enter the Priesthood receive a special gift one they should not neglect.  That gift comes from God in the form of grace.

Anointing of the Sick
Jam 5:14-15  Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:  And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him.

We are instructed to have the elders of the Church, those who have been given authority through the laying on of hands to pray over us and anoint us for healing and the forgiveness of sins, which implies repentance which we see above is inherently linked to salvation.


Admittedly this is not a complete defense of the sacraments but this first post of yours is just suppose to be an over view.  I know at the very least you will end up with a better understanding of the Church’s teachings, one your sorely need, by reading this.


One verse taken in isolation cannot tell the whole story.  Yes faith is a part of the economy of salvation but your one simple reference does not nor could it prove that is all there is to the issue.

Since the rest of your post are just personal claims without support or promises to cover the details later I will refrain from commenting now.


No, all we see is that you do not understand the position of the Church on these matters nor do you seem to want to, prefer rather to attack the weak position you portray them in rather than the true position of strength they doctrine holds.  All in all your lack of honest effort shows it is clear you are not interested in light but only spreading heat.

No, all we see is that you do not understand the position of the Church on these matters nor do you seem to want to, prefer rather to attack the weak position you portray them in rather than the true position of strength they doctrine holds.  All in all your lack of honest effort shows it is clear you are not interested in light but only spreading heat.
 
Posted by: michael_legna  Posted on: Today at 11:12:51am

Let me begin Michael by telling you that I was raised in the
roman belief, and spent 14 years as an alter boy.
I spent two years in their cemetary,oops that was supposed
to be seminary, and went to a catholic high school.

I say all of this so that you can not tell me that I am unable
to understand, or that I am uneducated in the teachings of
the roman cult.

Let us begin with their teachings of how doctrine is formed by
them, and what they rely upon as dogmatic truth.
     1) first and formost they rely upon the teachings, and
proclamations of their various popes.These men were able,
according to RCC teaching to be infalable when speaking on
matters of the church; yet; if you search thru church history
you will discover that there were several occations of "policy"
changes made each time a new pope was chosen.
     2) second the dogma of the RCC is based upon the long
traditions they have "upheld"  Has anyone bothered to invest
the time to see how much those traditions have changed in
just the last  50 years, let alone the last 2000. Take a good
look at the tenets that the priest Luther posted, showing the
papal errors of his time. Each and every one of the tenets
listed are now a part of the "teachings of the Catholic doctrine
of faith" hmm
     3)third--strange that the formost authority in a person's
desire to serve God is placed in importance in this position--
anyway third is the reliance upon the scriptures. The "lingua
vulgate" was used to provide the translation that is to be
read by the common people. But then why should they even
bother to do that?, because only the clergy can understand
the scriptures not the common man.

Getting back for a moment to my above statements: when I
arrived at the seminary I was told that I could read the bible
now, because now that I was studying for the priesthood I
would be able to understand it. They had no idea how right
they were. Even in the translation with the words printed in
the front  "nihil obstat"  (no objection to those of you who do
not know latin){this is written in the front of every book that
the roman cult authorizes its people to read} I was able to
find enough truth to know that the religion of my youth was
false. I do not hate the catholic people, please understand
that. But I do abhor the lie that the religious organization
so flagrantly propegates.Billions of people have been given a
false sense of security, believing themselves saved, when in
truth they will split hell wide open without having called upon
the name of Jesus for salvation.

There is only one way into heaven, and it is not the name
above a church door, it is not by acts, it is not by being good,
it is only by calling upon the name of Jesus for the remission
of our sins!
Rom 10:13 They that call upon the name of the Lord shall be
saved.
Baptism is an act that is to follow salvation--if a person gets
into the water a dry sinner, he comes out of the water a wet
sinner. nothing more!  We get baptized as an outward sign of
an already made inner commitment to Jesus.
The so called sacraments that you promote are a fallacy, they
are not scriptural, and they have no basis but tradition! In the
book of Matt. Jesus tells us that men make nul and void the
word of God teaching for doctrines the traditions of men.

I am a member of the clergy, even before I was a christian I
heard the call of the Lord, but thank Jesus that he led me into
the light, and out of the darkness of falsehood.

Respectfully yours in Yeshua:

Rev. Joseph E. Barnhouse Sr.  
  "ravenloche"

Two mistakes so far.  First is that the Church relies on the infallible teachings of the Popes “first and foremost”.  The Church sees all three sources of the Word of God as equal.  Scripture, Tradition and the teachings of the Magisterium (which includes the Councils) are all inerrant so they can not possibly disagree with each other so they are equal – one is not foremost as you claim.  Second you have offered no proof that there has been any change of doctrine.  I have studied Church history as well and have never been shown proof of any doctrinal change in the history of the Catholic Church.  Now I do notice that you maybe hedging your bet slightly as you say policy change (perhaps looking to cop out and fall back to issues of discipline) but that tact would be dishonest or reveal that you do not understand the issue of Papal Infallibility.


Wait a minute are you arguing that the tenets are changing or not?  First you say (without offering any proof again) that in the last fifty years they are and then you say that claims made by Luther 500 years ago are still valid.  Make up your mind you can’t argue both sides of the argument it makes it way to easy for me to win.


First as I pointed out above it is not the doctrine of the Catholic Church that the teachings of the Magisterium is above the Holy Scriptures.  If that is what you learned in your short stint in the seminary you left way too soon.  Secondly, there is plenty of reason to translate the Bible to the vernacular of the people.  The members of the Catholic Church are encouraged to read and understand and interpret the scripture for themselves.  They are only to know that if their interpretation conflicts with that of the Official Teachings of the Church, they must submit to the Church’s interpretation.  This is the same as any other church’s teaching.  If you do not agree with the teaching of a church you are to submit to them and agree or move on to another church, it only makes sense.  Plus it is what we are told to do in scripture.  Look at Heb 13:17  Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.  …and again at…  Mat 18:17  And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.


So you say, but that is not what the scriptures say, not if you look at all the scriptures and not just latch onto the first one you find that agrees with your preconceived notions.  If we are saved by faith alone why do the rest of the scriptures tell us to do all of the following?

1.   We have to obey the Gospel to be saved
(James 1:21-22, 2 Thessalonians 1:8, 1 Peter 4:17)
2.   We have to do works of mercy to be saved
(Matthew 25:31-46)
3.   We have to be Baptized by the water and the spirit to be saved
(John 3:5)
4.   We have to do the will of the Father to be saved
(Matthew 7:21)
5.   We have to love one another to be saved
(2 John 5-6, 1 John 4:7-21)
6.   We have to obey the commandments to be saved
(John 14:15-24, John 15:9-10, 1 John 5:2-3)
7.   We have to repent to be saved
(James 5:20, Luke 13:3, Acts 2:38, Acts 3:19)
8.   We have to discern Christ in the bread and wine to have eternal life
(John 6:54, 1 Corinthians 11:29)
9.   We have to do good works to be saved
(Romans 2:6-7, 1 Timothy 6:18-19)
10.   We need to work out our salvation with fear and trembling
(Philippians 2:12)
11.   We have to continue in the proper doctrine to be saved
(1 Tim 4:16)

Answer these points before you come back with more of your personal opinions.  By the way, one more for you:

What did Christ answer when He was asked what we must do to have eternal life?
(Matthew 19:16, Mark 10:17, Luke 10:25, Luke 18:18)


If it is just a outward sign then the scripture would not tell us it was impossible to be saved without it as I showed in Joh 3:5  Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.


So you claim (but without any scriptural references to back up your claim) while I provided scriptural support for my position and you choose to ignore it and merely rebut the scripture with your own good word.  Sorry - Not impressed.


What is your point?  Just because it happens sometimes does not mean that all Tradition is to be ignored as Paul tells us in 2Th 2:15  Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.


You can call yourself that if you want but I certainly don't have to accept you as clergy.  Scripture makes it clear that membership in the clergy requires a laying on of hands that comes down through an unbroken succession from the builder of the Church, Jesus Christ.  Until proven otherwise I can only assume the denomination you belong to does not have such a succession or link to the true, One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ.

Amen Rev!  Ravenloche that is...

Michael,

I believe we have come to the reason we disagree so much.  To you, the church is the authority.  To us, the bible is the authority.  The church does not make God's word useful, God's word makes the church useful.  We also believe that we have the completed revelation of God for this dispensation therein.  You believe that God gives us His word through additional sources.  Upon this, we will not agree.

And therein lies the crux of our disagreements.  Your theology is based upon the church.  Ours is based upon the bible.  You will continually spout dogma to support your beliefs.  We will quote scripture.  You will claim sola scripture to be a faulty approach.  We believe it is the only approach.  We simply will never agree on this matter.

Here's a simple logical question you may be able to help me with though...if the pope's infallible, why does his doctrine need correcting?

No to me the Church and the Bible and Tradition are all equal authorities.  To you the scriptures are the ground and pillar of truth and yet they tell you they are not; that the Church is the ground and pillar of truth.  You say that scripture alone is sufficient, yet the idea itself comes from outside of scripture thus contradicting itself.


My theology is based on the Church, the Scriptures and Tradition.  I do not spout dogma to support my beliefs I offer as much scripture here to back up my doctrines as anyone on this forum and much more than you do.


It doesn't.

Here is a logical question for you.  If the Church was a good enough authority for you to accept in determining what books were to be included in the New Testament, why has the book it established superceded it in your mind?

Amen and Amen, Ravenloche and Allinall.  You have hit the nail on the head, and until and unless the Lord open's Michael's eyes to His truth, there will be disagreement.

The issue that we are all facing today is that "evangelicals" and trying to find common ground with the RCC, when in fact there is a "wide gulf fixed".  Many are being deceived into thinking that compromise is the solution.  To the RCC, all Protestants and evangelicals are "heretics", so there will never be common ground.

I agree that we will continue to disagree over issues of doctrine and that is where efforts to bring light to an issue should be pursued.  But we will also disagree over issues when we do not understand each others teachings and light should be brought to these as well.

What you were doing in your post on the sacraments clearly showed that you misunderstand the Church's position on the sacraments and I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you were hoping to provide light and not heat as you claimed.  But in turn I offered light on your claims to help you understand the teachings of the Church properly.

There is enough for us to disagree on that we don't need people spreading false opinions on the others teachings to fan the flames of ignorance.

Michael, Michael, Michael...I've argued with people like you many times before.  Only they were on the Creation vs. Evolution thread of the forum and didn't believe in God either!   ;D  I'm kidding.  My point is simply that your scripture only holds weight so far as your dogma allows.  What comes through mostly in your argumentation, whether you see it or not, is the Catholic doctrine.  Not the scripture.  I will say that I've seen you give more scripture than most Catholics I've spoken with here.  Yet, I'd argue that even your scriptures are poorly hermenuetic in the manner in which they have been derived.


Hmmmmm...to me the scriptures contain all things that "pertain to life and godliness," and are "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness."  

I don't know what you mean by my scripture but if you mean that for the Church scripture only holds weight as far as dogma allows, then I would counter that for the Church dogma only holds weight as far as scripture allows.  That is how it works when both are inerrant, they cannot contradict or override one another.  If you mean that my interpretation of scripture only holds weight as far as dogma allows, you are right.  I am a member of the Church I must submit to those who have rule over me in spiritual matters.

Heb 13:17  Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.

But that makes sense for a couple of reasons.  First I believe that Christ would not establish a Church on earth and give it authority to resolve disputes (Mt 18:17) without providing it guidance to make the correct decisions in such matters.  Then I believe scriptures tells us that, that is indeed the way it was done (Mt 16:18-19).  Last but not least the scriptures are large and complex, I am not as smart as some of those who have gone before me, and I have had only a fraction of the amount of time they had combined to learn all the intricacies of the message in the Gospel.  So I am happy to rely on interpretations of those learned pious men and the system that has unified their teachings throughout 2000 years.  


If you mean that my interpretation of scripture sounds like a repeat of Catholic dogma rather than original thought or work then I take that as a compliment as I would not want to stray from the teachings of Christ's Church.  If you mean that my defense of the teachings of the Catholic Church don't seem to match scripture then that is a failing of mine because I have either poorly explained them or not provided the correct verses as reference; because there is nothing in the Catholic doctrine that is contrary to a proper understanding of scripture.

I will admit there are some posts where I am not trying to prove a point or that a certain interpretation is correct, but am only correcting an individual in their misconception of what the Catholic Church teaches as doctrine, since they have misrepresented it so badly, as is the case this time.


I would be glad to argue hermeneutics with you any time as I see it as one of the great stumbling blocks that separate Protestants from Catholics.  The whole process most Protestants use to interpret scripture is logically flawed and I think that accounts for a vast majority of the errors you see in their doctrines.


I agree except to point out that the first reference comes from 2 Peter and does not limit what He gave us to the written word; and would point out that "profitable" from 2 Timothy means it is useful but not necessarily solely sufficient.

I'll bite - what is your opinion on the Protestant flaw in this?

I will start another thread to answer your question.  Out of respect for the original poster of this thread I don't want to tie up this one with a mostly unrelated issue.

Look in the General Theology threads