True? "If a sacrament is validly entered into, it is permanent"


#1

This is a quote from the book “Roman Catholicism in America” by Chester Gillis.

My experience is that the Church does NOT teach or believe this EXCEPT in the case of marriage. Which frankly smacks of inconsistency from the Magisterium.

If you are baptized and convert to Baptist, they will REBAPTIZE you. Does the church still think you are a baptized Catholic even though you have entered into a second baptism?

If you are confirmed, and convert to the Episcopal faith and get confirmed there, are you still considered a confirmed Catholic, even though you have entered into a second confirmation?

If you receive First Communion and are in a second marriage without an annulment, does the church teach that you are still a Catholic in good standing and welcome to receive the Eucharist?

If you receive the sacrament of reconciliation, but convert to the Episcopal Church where all confession is communal, have you entered into a second invalid sacrament or are you always welcome to receive the sacrament from a Catholic Priest?

If you receive Holy Orders, are you always a priest even if you quit?

BUT if you are married and the marriage was a vaild sacramental union, are you always married no matter what?

It seems that statement of “If a sacrament is validly entered into, it is permanent” really only applies to marriage. I wonder why that is?


#2

Baptism, Matrimony and Holy Orders all impart a permanent character upon one’s soul.

In the baptism example you gave, the sacrament’s validity and permanence are not the issue, but the Baptists’ (general) view of the Catholic Church. The second baptism is done because they have the mistaken notion that the Trinitarian formula is not correct, that the baptism must be done “In Jesus’s name”.

Multiple baptisms isn’t a new controversy. That’s why the Nicene Creed says “we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins”.


#3

No need to wonder. Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Orders and Marriage are one-time only Sacraments (with expection of marriage, if the spouse dies). Any attempt to repeat them is a failure to recognize the original.


#4

It seems that statement of “If a sacrament is validly entered into, it is permanent” really only applies to marriage. I wonder why that is?

His statement is not correct.

Let me take them one at a a time:

If you are baptized and convert to Baptist, they will REBAPTIZE you. Does the church still think you are a baptized Catholic even though you have entered into a second baptism?

You can only receive Baptism once. The “act” of submitting to an attempted second baptism is seen as a possible defection from the Catholic Faith. But is never seen by the Catholic Church as “another Baptism”.

If you are confirmed, and convert to the Episcopal faith and get confirmed there, are you still considered a confirmed Catholic, even though you have entered into a second confirmation?

You can only receive Confirmation once. The “act” of submitting to an attempted although invalid “confirmation” is seen again as a possible defection from the Catholic Faith. But is never seen by the Catholic Church as “another Confirmation.” Especially in a Christian Community that has no valid Sacrament of Confirmation.

If you receive First Communion and are in a second marriage without an annulment, does the church teach that you are still a Catholic in good standing and welcome to receive the Eucharist?

No, Catholic conscious of being in state of Mortal sin due to an invalid Marriage is permitted to receive ANY Sacraments. they are still a Catholic and still under the obligations every Catholic is, such as attending Sunday Mass, even though they cannot receive Holy Communion.

If you receive the sacrament of reconciliation, but convert to the Episcopal Church where all confession is communal, have you entered into a second invalid sacrament or are you always welcome to receive the sacrament from a Catholic Priest?

A Catholic cannot “enter into an invalid Sacrament of Reconciliation” in the Episcopal Community, because no valid Sacrament exists in that Community. If they have “converted” and formally defected from the Catholic Church. They may not have access to the Catholic Sacraments until they return to full communion with the Catholic Church. All of these restrictions of course have exceptions in case of danger of death.

If you receive Holy Orders, are you always a priest even if you quit?

Yes, a man once Ordained a cleric is always a cleric. He may be removed from active ministry, but is always validly Ordained. He may always exercise the priestly functions in a restricted manner when someone is in danger of death.

BUT if you are married and the marriage was a vaild sacramental union, are you always married no matter what?

A valid Sacramental Marriage is always a permanent life long union, ending only with the death of one of the spouses. Then the Sacrament of Marriage may be validly received again.


#5

The Episcopal Church recognizes the validity of Catholic Sacraments and “receives” Catholics into fellowship but does not confirm them.

If you receive the sacrament of reconciliation, but convert to the Episcopal Church where all confession is communal, have you entered into a second invalid sacrament or are you always welcome to receive the sacrament from a Catholic Priest?

A Catholic cannot “enter into an invalid Sacrament of Reconciliation” in the Episcopal Community, because no valid Sacrament exists in that Community. If they have “converted” and formally defected from the Catholic Church. They may not have access to the Catholic Sacraments until they return to full communion with the Catholic Church. All of these restrictions of course have exceptions in case of danger of death.

Correct. Just a point for the OP: Many Episcopalians practice confession privately in the presence of a priest. I had the same confessor for 18 years before I became Catholic.


#6

Good job, Bro. Rich! Who is this Chester Gillis? I hope not a Catholic. Not having read the book, whether he is or is not, I would opine either his research was inadequate or he meant something other than what the sentence implies.


#7

I think you meant Confirmation, not Matrimony. Marriage does not impart an indellible mark on the soul.


#8

If you receive First Communion and are in a second marriage without an annulment, does the church teach that you are still a Catholic in good standing and welcome to receive the Eucharist?

No, Catholic conscious of being in state of Mortal sin due to adultry -]an invalid Marriage /-]is not permitted to receive ANY Sacraments. they are still a Catholic and still under the obligations every Catholic is, such as attending Sunday Mass, even though they cannot receive Holy Communion.


#9

I think you meant Confirmation, not Matrimony. Marriage does not impart an indellible mark on the soul.

Marriage is a man and woman and God all in agreement to bring forth the next generation, and does impart grace in the man and woman IF THEY are valid in their request. If they are less than fully committed God knows and no grace is imparted. That lack of fully commitment and grace is what the marriage tribunal is looking for.
hope that helps


#10

Although what you say is true, the sacrament of marriage does not make an indelible mark on the soul; it is a sacrament for this life – “until death us do part.”


#11

You’re right, of course.

Although, as every man knows, marriage changes ya! Whether you want to or not, a lot of times!


#12

Yeah. I think I might have a couple indelible marks from it!


#13

:smiley: Ain’t that the truth!


#14

Based on the remainder of your post, it is your understanding of Sacraments that are at issue, not the Church’s teaching. Yes, the Sacraments have a permanent character just as the book you reference states. The Catechism teaches this also.

The Baptists might “rebaptize” a person, but the Catholic Church does not recognize this rebaptism. A person can only be baptized once. The Catholic Church recognizes the original Catholic baptism.

Correct. A person who is confirmed in the Catholic Church cannot be “confirmed” again. The Episcopal “confirmation” is not valid and not a sacrament.

No Catholic in a state of mortal sin may receive the Eucharist. A person who is divorced and remarried outside the Church is committing adultery and cannot receive any of the sacraments until they repent and discontinue their adultery or until their first marriage is prove null and their subsequent marriage convalidated.

The Episcopal church does NOT have a valid sacrament of Reconciliation. Therefore, whatever a Catholic may have participated in while away from the Church it was not a sacrament. A Catholic who has defected from the Church may always return to her and seek the Sacrament of Reconcilation.

Yes

Yes, until your spouse dies.

You are confused about the nature of Sacraments.


#15

The book reference is about the permanent nature of Sacraments, as quoted in the thread title. The rest of the post is the OP’s musings, not those of the author of the book.

At least that is how I am reading this thread. The author’s comments are perfectly orthodox regarding the indelible character of the Sacraments.


#16

I didn’t read that way, but now that you mention it. Change “His” to “Your”.


#17

Thank you! Yes, it WAS musings. No argument with Catholic sacraments was intended, sorry if I misspoke.

What I guess I was asking could be put more simply, “Can any sacrament be broken by the Catholic, except marriage?”

Kind of seems that way.

Second baptism? Welcome back.
Second confirmation? Welcome back.
Quit your Holy Orders and got married? Welcome back.

Remarried without anullment SINNER!

How is that wrong?

PS Now remember this is a DISCUSSION not a war :slight_smile:


#18

You are wrong. Catholics aren’t inconsistent on this.

If you are baptized and convert to Baptist, they will REBAPTIZE you. Does the church still think you are a baptized Catholic even though you have entered into a second baptism?

You are still baptized. In a sense the Church considers all baptized people Catholic. There’s only one baptism. If you leave the Catholic Church then you are no longer considered to be in full communion, but your baptism is still valid. So your charge of inconsistency is false.

The same is true of confirmation, of course.

If you receive First Communion and are in a second marriage without an annulment, does the church teach that you are still a Catholic in good standing and welcome to receive the Eucharist?

The original quote was only referring to the “non-repeatable” sacraments. That should have been stated more clearly, but it should be obvious. Certainly it seems weird to argue that receiving communion somehow makes you permanently able to receive communion. The purpose of communion is not to make you able to receive communion. If it were “permanent” it would mean that you never had to receive communion again, which of course no one teaches.

If you receive the sacrament of reconciliation, but convert to the Episcopal Church where all confession is communal,

Not true. We have private confession in the Episcopal Church as well–it’s just not mandatory.

have you entered into a second invalid sacrament or are you always welcome to receive the sacrament from a Catholic Priest?

As with the Eucharist, this should have been expressed more clearly in the original quote. Again, no one claims that one absolution permanently forgives you for future sin. That would be a monstrous idea. Being “always welcome to receive the sacrament” is neither here nor there. You’re just forcing that meaning to suit your agenda.

If you receive Holy Orders, are you always a priest even if you quit?

Yes. That is Catholic teaching.

Edwin


#19

There’s no inconsistency. The previous three “welcome backs” are predicated on rejection of the “invalid” sacraments. Obviously a person who renounced their second marriage–or at least, as I understand it, agreed to live as “brother and sister”–would be welcome back as well. Your parallel is faulty, because in the remarriage case the person is expecting the Church to recognize the second marriage (and thus dismiss the first).

The word “SINNER” is an empty bit of rhetoric on your part. It has nothing whatever to do with how serious the sin is. It has to do with one’s willingness/ability to stop sinning.

This is a very difficult pastoral matter and I am far from satisfied with the Roman Communion’s approach to the subject. But you don’t even seem to understand the position you are criticizing.

Edwin


#20

Not true. Baptists baptize in the name of the Trinity as well–at least in my experience (there are Baptists who can be found to do just about anything under the sun). Are you sure you aren’t thinking of Oneness Pentecostals?

Edwin


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.