In certain Evangelical circles (typically, but not exclusively, Baptists) you’ll hear talk of baptism and the “Lord’s Supper” being “ordinances.” What’s going on with that, and what does it have to do with the Catholic [and Orthodox] view of the Sacraments? That’s the question that I’m exploring in a piece over at Catholic Answers Magazine today. It’s a weird history, and I try to trace the broad strokes of how a fear of “works-righteousness” lead to a rejection of the Sacraments as efficacious, and ironically resulted in a lot of weird Protestant legalism… which is why you get fruitless debates about whether a baptism was done by “sprinkling” or by “immersion,” as if that’s the relevant part of the rite. Here’s a taste:
First and foremost, it takes the focus off God and places it onto us. Got Questions, a Protestant FAQ website, explains that “a sacrament, at some level, involves a supernatural work of God. An ordinance is simply an act of man in obedience to God.” The Catholic understanding is that God is the one doing something for us through the sacraments: as Jesus says at the Last Supper, “this is my body which is given for you” (Luke 22:19). But the Evangelical understanding twists this into the ordinances being something we do for God. And because Evangelicalism is adamantly opposed to anything resembling “works righteousness,” this means they have to strip the sacraments/ordinances of any power.
In 2019, Mark Galli, then editor-in-chief of Christianity Today, asked, “Whatever Happened to Communion & Baptism?,” lamenting how the major sacraments of Christianity had been relegated to unimportance. At a mass baptism of four hundred people, Galli recalled, in which four or five people gave their testimony, and the pastor asked each one, “But you don’t believe that baptism saves you, right?”
[Galli:] “It wasn’t just the question, but the leading way in which it was asked time and again that suggested to me that the pastor was deeply afraid of the power of the sacrament. And the fact that he also asked this right before each person was baptized went a long way into ensuring that the sacrament did not become a means by which God broke in and blessed the recipient but became all about the horizontal: an act of the person’s faith.”
As I said, I find the whole devolution interesting. If you’d like, I’d encourage you to go read the whole thing.
Hey Joe, interesting synopsis, but I will say my church, church of Christ, believes submersion baptism is the way of salvation and we believe that communion needs to be administered weekly and it is a symbol of Christ’s body and blood, although we use grape juice. Just a thought.
Why use grape juice when Jesus used bread and wine? Oh, I know. You think the “ritual” is a symbol. The problem with that belief is that scripture states that “…whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord unworthily will have to answer for the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Corinthians 11: 27). “Answer for the body and blood of the Lord”? That means murdering Jesus! Wow! That is no symbol. In the Catholic Church, the Eucharist is sacred because it is the body and blood of Christ, just as Jesus said it is at the last supper: “This is my body…This cup is the new covenant in my blood…” (Luke 22: 19-20).
The Bible doesn’t say Jesus used “wine.” It says “fruit of the vine.” Look up whichever account of the Lord’s Supper you want in any gospel or in Corinthians; none of the say “wine.”
As to symbol vs transubstantiation. From my experience in the COC I would say they believe in transubstantiation by faith rather than by the words of the minister. That it becomes rhe true body and blood of the Lord in their throat, if they have faith. Nobody explains it that way (publicly anyway), but that’s what I gather from behaviors. One of them being insisting on observing it every sunday and the belief that missing a sunday spells damnation; nobody who truly believes its purely a symbol would go that far.
Its an interesting position in that it avoids two problems:
(1) the need for magician class priests to put the whammy on the bread and make it into Jesus’ body. Your faith does that after its in your throat already.
(2) the need to prevent those sneaky Satanists from getting ahold of a host to do Satanic rituals with; since your faith causes the transubstantiation in your throat, all the sneaky Sataniat can get ahold of is mere bread.
The Passover meal which Jesus was celebrating is opened with a cup of wine, and another three cups of wine will follow during this celebration. (Matzah, unleavened bread, is broken and eaten, also.). My understanding that to this day, the Jewish Passover, with some variation, is still celebrated in this way.
The bread becomes Jesus’ body , blood, soul and divinity at consecration (Eucharist), not when it touches the throat; that is a misconception. The priest, by way of God, not by way of “magician class,” is the one who consecrates the host because Jesus set it up this way: “…do this in memory [anamnesis: Greek] of me” (Luke 22: 19). The word “anamnesis” is bringing a past sacrifice present today, just as the Jewish people still view the Passover meal. Jesus said “do” this, so priests “do” this.
Satanist love to get their hands on the Eucharist, not crackers and grape juice, because they know it is truly God upon consecration.
One more thing, Catholics keep holy the Lord’s day because it is scriptural. The earliest Christians “broke bread” on the Lord’s day because that is the day Jesus rose from the dead. Under the new covenant, Christians adhere to the Lord’s day as opposed to the Sabbath day, a commandment, not a suggestion.
“The Passover meal which Jesus was celebrating is opened with a cup of wine,”
That is just Talmudic tradition. The Law of Moses says nothing leavened is to be consumed suring passover. Talmudic rabbis make an exception for wine becauae they are drunks. But the fact that the gospels say “fruit of the vine” rather than “win” suggests that Jesus followed the law more strictly as written on that point.
COC also do sunday not saturday so not sure what your point was on that.
“The word ‘anamnesis’ is bringing a past sacrifice present today,” — made up definition. That Sacraments work by faith not magic priests is proven by baptism: an adult unbeliever baptized by a valid priests ia only a wet adult unbeliever, even in Catholicism. The COC understands it the same of an infant and so only practices believer’s baptism. And rhe communion ia the same; your faith, not the minister’s magic, ia the important thing. As also the minister’s magic doesn’t make a baptized atheist a Chriatian.
“Satanist love to get their hands on the Eucharist, not crackers and grape juice, because they know it is truly God upon consecration.”
the real reason satanists want their hands on the catholic wafer and not the coc bread is satanists grew up catholic and became satanists because of the paganism and mary worship and everything else in catholucism thag made a mockery and turned them into satanists
The Jewish passover meal used several cups of wine during its celebration. The Gospel of Luke appears to give us the account of the second cup, followed by the breaking of the bread6 which Jesus confessed to be his body, subsequently followed by a third cup (the blessing cup) which Jesus confessed to be his blood. The final cup (which is not mentioned by Luke) was the cup of praise at which point they would sing the Hallel psalm. Also, Jesus is a priest according to the order of Melchizedek, who offered bread and wine. I’m not sure there is good grounds to claim that the cup did not contain wine.
As long as you’re in communion with the popes of the V2 system it doesn’t matter becauae you’re in outright apostacy due to the V2 position that “the Jews are still God’s chosen people” and that the Mosaic Covenant is a salvific covenant and they are saved by mere possesion of a copy of the Old Testament. That is the V2 position and being a member of that body, therefore, means apostacy against Christ. So what it says of the sacraments is irrelevant.
The Jews were God’s chosen people. Jesus, our salvation, was a Jew. Therefore, the Jews are still God’s chosen people. As long as Jesus is Jesus, that cannot change. Vatican 11, however, does not mean that Jews should not become Christians. Quite the contrary. Because they are God’s chosen people, God wants them saved through Jesus Christ. Vatican 11 would say no less. (There is much misconception surrounding what was and was not said in Vatican 11, so much taken out of context.)
@COC Joe
“the real reason satanists want their hands on the catholic wafer and not the coc bread is satanists grew up catholic and became satanists because of the paganism and mary worship and everything else in catholucism thag made a mockery and turned them into satanists”
Do you have credible supporting evidence for these claims of Satanists, paganism, & Mary worship?
On what basis do you make these claims?
Don’t forget that we Anglicans and Lutherans are in agreement with the Roman church in regards to baptism. We also believe in the “Real Prescence” of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist. Unlike the worthless, hollow Lord’s Supper of the Calvinists. Though the real degradation of Holy Communion can be a6ttributed to the Swiss “deformer” Ulrich Zwingli.
I’ve never understood the “work of man” terminology used in these circles. If we agree all good come from God, Baptism and Lord’s Supper are good, therefore it must be from God. Seems like you either have to say Baptism is from God or evil. If from God how is it works righteousness?
“which is why you get fruitless debates about whether a baptism was done by “sprinkling” or by “immersion,” as if that’s the relevant part of the rite”
It is important to get the symbolism right if you want a valid sacrament, they are not part of disciplines, the Church cannot change the sacraments or ordinances. Getting the method right is more important than the liturgy
If I may, I share here an article I wrote about Sacramentalism, understood as acts that confer or facilitate the reception of God’s Grace: https://vidaemabundancia.blogspot.com/2013/03/sacramentalismo-os-atos-que-conferem.html