Why are the Sacraments not in Biblical order?

From what I see, the order of Sacraments in scripture would have been:

  1. Believe

  2. Repent

  3. Baptism (which was also Confirmation)

  4. Then they were allowed to participate in the Eucharist

Thoughts?

Not sure what your question is, exactly?

This is, indeed, the order of Sacraments for Catholics.

No person can receive the Eucharist unless she believes, repents and is baptized.

Belief and repentance are not sacraments, but they indeed precede Baptism for adult converts.

To be fair, the order we encounter the sacraments in the Scriptures would be:

Matrimony (the wedding at Cana)
Anointing of the Sick (a number of healing miracles)
Reconciliation (a number of instances in which Jesus forgave sins)
Holy Orders (Last Supper)
Eucharist (Last Supper)
Baptism / Confirmation (Acts of the Apostles)

Of course, that doesn’t imply that this is the order in which they should be received. :wink:

I guess it seems Eucharist is something that wouldn’t come before confirmation.

I guess the believe & repent seems to be confirmation when I look at it.

For the apostles, it did. :wink:

Were the Apostles baptized before they took the Last Supper?

Why do you feel the need that the events in the Life of Christ and the apostles maps precisely onto the life of the Church today?

This is just not necessary. Those moments and events were “special,” and not normative in the entirety of their character. For instance, we don’t celebrate Mass laying on couches around a table, except that is how the Last Supper probably would have been conducted.

Confirmation/Chrismation was, in ancient practice, done after Baptism but before the Eucharist, even when administered to infants. It is not the same as Baptism, though. The age of administration of the sacraments of initiation has varied in the western Church, as has the order. The Church is responsible for administration of the sacraments and determining what is appropriate. To be honest, I like the idea of Baptism > Confirmation > Eucharist in my own mind, but as a member of the laity that’s not my determination. I submit to the Church’s authority and expertise on the matter on what’s best for the faithful.

Think of Confirmation more like Pentecost. It’s a descent of the Holy Spirit onto a person and a strengthening of it. Confirmation means “to strengthen,” but it should be remembered that the other term for the sacrament is “Chrismation”, which implies an anointing.

This tract includes some quotes by the Church Fathers: catholic.com/tracts/confirmation

Sure! By John the baptist.http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h244/corona_stellarum/Smilies/1sm191coke.gif

Number 1 and 2 are not Sacraments.

I think what he means is that the order in which we receive the sacrament of the Eucharist is not in Biblical order.

Not sure. It’s definitely not written that way.

Only two Sacraments are addressed. And unless we are going to discuss Infant Baptism, which I think may be at the heart of the OP, the decision of belief and repentance does come before Baptism and Communion.

Yes, exactly. And in the hand, and in the vernacular, and with no music. :wink:

Yes - that is what I mean! Thank you!

I realize the first two are not sacraments. Someday I’ll learn to communicate.:slight_smile:

Thanks for the correction then. Do you mind sharing where you are in relation to the faith?

Did you know there’s a thing called baptism through desire? It could be argued that Mary was baptized through desire when she chose to serve the lord. She was really the first person to know that the child she would be raising is the Christ. Then the Holy Spirit came upon her to conceive Jesus (Confirmation). Then of course the child inside her was Jesus, body, blood, soul, and divinity.

I was baptized Catholic as an infant, first communion, then left the church. Married a cradle Catholic that did not know the faith, but weekly mass attender.

About four years ago I went thru RCIA, was confirmed (but should not have done it - a difficult time in my life, too much to explain here).

About a year after that I met a great Baptist pastor and began attending church there. It was with his help I finally began to find a real relationship and understanding of Jesus.

Spent time reading First Apology of Justin Martyr this AM, and again find nothing to indicate infant baptism or Eucharist for anyone that was not a baptized believer that had been taught and confirmed their faith.

Hi Markie,
You’re looking in the wrong church father. Take a look at this blog of mine. The Case For Infant Baptism It shows that Polycarp was baptized as an infant and by an apostle no less since he was a disciple of St. John.

How can one have a closer relationship with Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ than in the Eucharist? I receive Him into my heart as my personal savior at every Mass.:smiley:

  1. He does not talk about infant baptism, but Luke does in Acts.

  2. The Eucharist is only for those who are baptized by water. The Lord Himself while among his apostles is NOT the sole rule for the administration of the Sacraments.

Seeing as there really was no such thing as a “Church” yet, how could one be baptized into it? Do you also realize they were essentially ordained priests prior to their First Communion? It seems that during the Last Supper Christ wanted to draw the apostles into participation with Himself in an extremely special way, and that before anyone else. A few weeks later, it is a totally different story… Now there is the Great Commission to go and baptize, there is a Church after the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (which is more like a manifestation of the baptism of desire which they had already undergone throughout the 3 years of Our Lord’s public ministry), and there is now a clear order placed in the hands of that Church to be a steward of.

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.