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


#21

None can be *undone *or invalidated. They can all be *transgressed *in various ways.

A person who attempts baptism in another sect commits the sin of schism, heresy or apostacy, depending upon the circumstance. This does not “undo” their valid baptism. The sin they commit must be forgiven in Confession-- they must repudiate this invalid baptism and repent of their sin of schism, heresy, or apostacy.

Same thing. There is no “second confirmation” and it does not “undo” their valid, Catholic Confirmation-- this is merely the sin of schism, heresy, or apostacy. If they repudiate this and go to Confession they are forgiven.

Not quite. A priest who has not received a dispensation from the Vatican to marry, marries invalidly and cannot be reconciled to the Church until and unless they are properly dispensed or cease living in the sin of adultery.

If one is validly married, that Sacrament cannot be broken either. That is why the “remarriage” is not a marriage at all. A person who “remarries” is NOT married to this second person. Just like a “second” baptism is merely a farse, a simulation of the real thing, so too is a “remarriage”.

A person in such a situation is committing adultery.

They too can be welcomed back** if they cease living in adultery **or if their first marriage is determined to have been invalid meaning there was no Sacrament at all.


#22

I have no agenda. I am criticizing nothing. The book merely raised a question for me and I thought it might be edifying to enter into discussion.

Why is it necessary to attack me (not just Edwin, but others as well)? For the sake of discussion I may have given a false impression.

I am a cradle Catholic. I am married to the angel God sent to me. I was an altar boy who had to know my Latin prayers because of the ancient Msgr who would not do Mass in English after Vatican II. I have written curriculum for a Catholic Confirmation program. I’ve taught CCD and was a teacher in a Catholic middle school. I spent 3 years as an organizer and team member for teen encounters. I began to study for the diaconate but decided to get a PhD instead.

Some really good information has been offered to address the question. Thanks to you all.

But why the barbs?

“If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.”

Just thought I’d throw that in.


#23

that does not make any sense

Sacraments are not revoked, they can not be “If a sacrament is validly entered into, it is permanent” the statement is correct. Annulments do not remove the sacrament of marriage, they are a declaration the act was invalid.


#24

Quit your Holy Orders and got married? Welcome back. (but not back to the active priesthood)

Second baptism? Welcome back. (Sinner), Reconciliation is always possible

Second confirmation? Welcome back. (Sinner), Reconciliation is always possible

Remarried without annulment, (Sinner), Reconciliation is always possible


#25

The only Baptists I know and have had the occasion to talk with don’t use the trinitarian formula. Perhaps I’ve only known ones from a certain type of Baptist tradition?


#26

Given that the world of “independent” Baptist churches may baptize with a non-trinitarian formula, that is certainly not the case in the big Baptist groups, such as the SBC, which definitely baptize “in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”


#27

Because if you are remarried without having an annulment you are (unless living as brother and sister) committing the ongoing sin of adultery. Remember, forgiveness comes when your repent of your sin. Left the Church but now repent? Welcome Back. However, in staying in the second marriage, you are not repenting the sin of adultery.


#28

My apologies. I’m an Episcopalian and several of your questions pertained to Catholics becoming Episcopalians. I thought your questions were rather unfair to the Catholic position, and as an Episcopalian I thought it incumbent on me to point this out as strongly as possible.

Edwin


#29

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Baptist baptism that didn’t use it: I’ve seen Free Will Baptist, Southern Baptist, and fundamentalist Independent Baptist baptisms (all in East Tennessee), and a Romanian Baptist baptism as well. I’ve also seen a video (from a trip my mother was on) of an unregistered Baptist baptism in Moldova, but I don’t clearly remember if I heard the baptismal formula on that one. I and my parents were baptized by a Southern Baptist pastor, although we were not baptized in (or into) a Southern Baptist church (this is contrary to SB teaching and discipline, but he was willing to do it anyway).

What kinds of Baptists have you known?

Edwin


#30

I’d be surprised if fundamentalist independent Baptists didn’t use the Trinitarian formula, but I’ve been surprised before. Certainly the one such baptism I’ve seen used the name of the Trinity.

The only Baptists I’ve heard of not using the Trinitarian formula were very liberal Baptists who allegedly used “Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer” or something like that. Perhaps some of them use the name of Jesus alone.

Edwin


#31

O good grief! Baptists going over to “creator, redeemer and sanctifier?” These ARE the last days!


#32

At the risk of opening yet another can of worms.

The “Pastoral Companion; a Canon Law Handbook” . . . states in regards to the internal forum, “It is not proper for ministers of the Eucharist to invoke canon 915 to deny holy Communion to persons in irregular marriages… unless they are aware with complete certainty that no internal forum solution presently exists.”

And since the internal forum is by it’s nature a secret thing, no minister at the time of Communion ought to attempt to invoke can. 915.

Which I guess also means we should withhold JUDGMENTS about who is committing adultery and who is not. Maybe that blanket judgment doesn’t cover all situations.

Love one another.


#33

There have been liberal Baptists as long as there have been liberal anything else. In the 18th century most of the General Baptists in England became Unitarians.

Edwin


#34

*The “Pastoral Companion; a Canon Law Handbook” . . . states in regards to the internal forum, “It is not proper for ministers of the Eucharist to invoke canon 915 to deny holy Communion to persons in irregular marriages… unless they are aware with complete certainty that no internal forum solution presently exists.”

And since the internal forum is by it’s nature a secret thing, no minister at the time of Communion ought to attempt to invoke can. 915. *

Which I guess also means we should withhold JUDGMENTS about who is committing adultery and who is not. Maybe that blanket judgment doesn’t cover all situations.

Love one another.

I do not believe that to be a proper interpetation. It still makes no sense a deacan candidate would have these issues or ask these questions?


#35

Please clarify, Texas Roofer. I’m not sure I understand your meaning. Do you mean we SHOULD pass a blanket judgment on all divorced and remarried people? Where did the deacon candidate come from?

I’m confused.


#36

*The “Pastoral Companion; a Canon Law Handbook” . . . states in regards to the internal forum, “It is not proper for ministers of the Eucharist to invoke canon 915 to deny holy Communion to persons in irregular marriages… unless they are aware with complete certainty that no internal forum solution presently exists.”

And since the internal forum is by it’s nature a secret thing, no minister at the time of Communion ought to attempt to invoke can. 915*.

Which I guess also means we should withhold JUDGMENTS about who is committing adultery and who is not. Maybe that blanket judgment doesn’t cover all situations.

Love one another.

The statement appears to warn Eucharist ministers of extending their duties beyond distribution

Do you mean we SHOULD pass a blanket judgment on all divorced and remarried people?

no not at all nor does the church

Where did the deacon candidate come from?

post #22

I’m confused.

may because the concept of the Church undoing a sacrament is incorrect?


#37

I apologize in advance for not reading the whole thread, but I want to respond right away -

Yes, you are still a Catholic. (If you attempt marriage in the Baptist Church, you will discover that you are still a Catholic.)

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?

Yep, and again, if you attempt marriage in your new religion, you will discover that you are still a Catholic.

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?

Who said anything about being in good standing? You’re a bad Catholic, at this point, but you’re still subject to the laws of the Church.

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?

Yes, and when you intend to repent of your sins, you will be welcomed back into good standing with the Catholic Church when you do so.

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

Yes.

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

Yes. No contradiction, here.

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?

Not at all. It applies equally to all of the Sacraments.


#38

Oh I see, yes I did begin study for the diaconate but it wouldn’t be fair to call me a deacon candidate. I guess I didn’t realize what you meant.

It appears from all that I have read here, and the voices were strong and well-informed, that the Church sees all sacraments as permanent when validly entered. I could find no offical context in which a sacrament could be or would be un-done.

I’m satisfied.

PS I only sought discussion. I’d have been convinced, even without the sneering and hostility that some of the posts contained.


#39

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.