Unworthy Ministers and Baptism

I know the church says even unworthy ministers can administer the sacraments so long as the recipient takes them sincerely and worthily. They say this is because Jesus entrusted this power to the disciples including Judas. Now, I want to know, if a priest properly ordained through a church with succession cannot be guaranteed to be a believer whenever someone takes a sacrament from them, what do you say about those who are baptized in the trinitarian formula outside of apostolic churches? From what I understand the EO, RC and Anglicans all believe these are valid even if at this point they are not in full communion with the church. What benefit does the ordination provide to their churches to a minister in sin/heresy if even someone outside the church, whether believing or not can perform valid baptisms? Some Protestants object by saying "I baptize you..." is just a declaration and irrelevant to the recipient's belief which would seem to negate the argument in favor of ordination/succession.

 

Actually, not all the Orthodox accept Protestant sacraments as being valid. I had been baptized in a Baptist church as a child, and when I joined the Serbian Orthodox Church, I was re-baptized. Even those who accept a Trinitarian Protestant baptism, e.g., the Antiochians, believe that the Chrismation which follows makes up for any deficiencies that might exist.

 

The basic position of the Church is expressed in the Nicene Creed.

We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.​

The origins of this are specifically to stop divisive arguments and to recognise that we are Church. It is the absolute follow on from.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. ​

The way Anglicans understand this, and in the context of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral, so long as there is a valid baptism (ie water and the invocation of the Triune Name, together with proper sacramental intent), we accept you as baptised. If there is some doubt about the matter, Anglicans should be ready for a conditional baptism, as it is essential to ensure that we do not break faith with the Nicene Creed.

As I understand it this is the correct position of the RCC as well, however given that they are somewhat inclined to assume that being in communion with the See of Peter is the definition of the Catholic Church, far too many of them in practice are prepared top ignore an outliers baptism.

Thinks are a little different in the Eastern Churches, and given that Orthopraxy often outweighs Orthodoxy, in the main they see more as being essential to the rite, including total immersion, chrismation, ... and so are less inclined to accept a baptism from any western rite.

 

The Roman Catholic church believes that Baptism is so important that anyone (priest,deacon,layman, of any denomination or none) can baptise validly, provided they use the correct Trinitarian formula and use plain,natural water whilst pouring (or using total immersion) on the head. The manuals of moral theology [e.g. H.Davies: Moral and Pastoral Theology (four vols) would cover the exact forms and regulations for the correct administration of all the sacraments. I have seen a Baptism in an Anglican Church (c.1970) where no water was poured but only the sign of the Cross was made on the baby's head, so not valid as a sacrament. If there is a doubt about the correct administration of the sacrament then conditional baptism (not re-baptism) would be given were the person come into the R.C.C. The old books of piety always had a section often at the front which gave directions for Emergency Lay Baptism, often done in hospitals by nurses.
As far as I know - and I am no expert - the different Orthodox jurisdictions are not agreed about whether Sacraments exist outside the Orthodox Church and therefore some jurisdictions receive by Chrismation and some by Baptism. The strict monasteries of Mount Athos and the Russians generally receive by Baptism.

 

If the trinitarian formula is used, (i.e. the baptised person is given to understand the nature of the vows they are taking and the 'unity of divine persons' they are committing their hope of salvation to), then the person ministering and saying the words of the formula and pouring or sprinkling the water becomes almost an irrelevance. It is God who is doing the baptising, just as it is God that is providing the salvation of the baptised. God can work through the wicked as well as the righteous, especially when it is the faith of the recipient that is paramount, not the supposed moral perfection of the minister.

One baptism for the remission of sins, basically means only once is necessary. It also means the real baptism is the one that Christ performs in regeneration and circumcision of the heart, not the physical baptism with water which symbolises the real baptism of the Holy Spirit, administered by Christ alone, sometime in a disciple's life, which may or may not actually coincide, in time, with the physical baptism with water.

 

Thank you,Tiffy, you clarify precisely the differences between Roman Catholic and Orthodox understanding of the objective,reality of the sacrament (the thing is done and completed by the outward actions and the worthiness of the minister has nothing to do with its value) and the classical protestant view of the sacrament : that they are badges and symbols and depend on the interior faith and confidence of the recipient.

Baby baptism is an example of this difference ; i.e. the baby is a perfect,pure,clean true child of God, the moment baptism has been administered, even though it has no consciousness of what has happened.
The baby has been made a child of God BY the pouring of the water simultaneously with the baptismal formula.

 

Correct to a degree. The difference, for Anglicans, between the full effect of baptism for a non-understanding infant and the full effect of baptism for an understanding adult is this:

The understanding Adult, is cleansed from sin and enters into the New Covenant as a purely legal arrangement, through faith in God's promises to sinful mankind. As such they enter fully and at once into the Covenant as a communion of life.

The infant's of believers however are only entitled to be declared 'holy' because scripture says they are such, 1 Cor.7:14, but only if at least one of their parents is a believer in God's promises. As such the infant enters Christ's church as a purely legal arrangement, since the child is legally 'God's property', but does not yet enter fully into a communion of life, but can be assumed, (all things going as they should), will remain in and eventually fully enter into a such a salvation relationship if they cooperate with God and His purpose for their lives.

Most will grow in grace, Luke 2:40, learn and respond to God's call to repentance and faith. Some may never fully enter the covenant life, but that is known only to God at the time of their baptism but may become apparent to others some years later. That is why we have Confirmation, in which the infant, now an adult, takes upon themselves the responsibility for their conduct before God and places their hope of salvation in Christ alone by faith and obedience to Christ's teaching. Just as an adult should at their baptism.

Nobody is made anything BY dunking, pouring or sprinkling water on them. Infants are declared 'Holy to God' and therefore admitted to the Church of Jesus Christ, only by virtue of being born to a believer. As such they were 'born already Holy'. God has no Covenant obligations toward the children of non believers, indeed scripture does not declare them 'Holy' but refers to them as 'unclean', 1 Cor.7:14, however in spite of that, God is graciously disposed to all infants and welcomes them into covenant with him as soon as they call upon His name. Acts 2:21.
.

 

Thank you so much. Tiffy. This does make things clear to me; as an Anglican "born and bred" nobody ever taught me any of this. I wonder where what you write is found in any official and classical Anglican formularies ?

I would have been taught and followed the BCP (1662) Catechism- which I had to learn BY HEART in order to be confirmed - which says :

What is the inward and spiritual grace [of baptism] ?
A death unto sin,and a new birth unto righteousness:for being by nature born in sin,and the children of wrath,we are HEREBY (my emphasis)made the children of grace.

That's what I thought Anglicans believe; that the sacrament effects (HEREBY) what it signifies, but I may be completely wrong; I never did train for Ordination, which was what was intended !!! I don't want to step on Anglican toes, so excuse me if I am wrong.

 

According to Article 27, "Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or new Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed; Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God."

The emphasised line shows where the divergence of thought perhaps occurs. Some of us will lean on the first part: baptism is an "instrument" by which God confers all these blessings and the new life & status in Christ. Others will lean on receiving it "rightly" and reduce the act of baptism to a conditional promise awaiting confirmation. I hold to the former emphasis, and if I'm not mistaken, the latter emphasis has been given some attention above.

 

Much of this I have learned by study and experience. Scripture tells us, "If anyone lacks knowledge let them ask of The Lord". Knowledge comes to us from various places, scripture and church practice included, but not everything concerning what God wants us to know, when we ask of Him, comes exclusively through the formularies of the Anglican church and many people do not ask God so they do not therefore know.

You rightly state the words of the catechism: "A death unto sin, and a new birth unto righteousness: for being by nature born in sin, and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace."

We would be right to assume that in the case of any understanding adult, coming to baptism, wanting to pledge allegiance to Christ Jesus as Lord and Saviour these words express the truth. However in the case of an infant with at least one believing parent, being brought to baptism, they do not express the whole truth, which is slightly more nuanced.

An infant of a 'covenant keeping parent', is already 'Holy' to God 1 Cor.7:14, because the parent has been 'bought with a price', 1 Cor.6:20, 1 Cor.7:23 and therefore everything that the parent has 'belongs to God' already, including especially their children Ex.21:1-6. That is why they are declared by the Apostle Paul to be 'Holy', and if 'Holy' they are not 'naturally' born in sin. The children of unbelievers and nonbelievers would be naturally born in sin though, being declared by the same Apostle to be regarded by God as 'unclean'.

Every infant however, regardless of whether they have a believing parent or not, Holy (i.e. set apart for God's purposes), or Unclean (i.e. unfit for God's service), is predisposed from the moment of birth to rebellion against God's governance. Lev.26:14-28. This is why children must be 'brought up in the fear and nurture of The Lord', taught His precepts, informed of the privileges His Grace has afforded them, and reminded of their baptism into His church. Baptism, for infants, is a sign and seal for the individual of God's Grace toward them, and a demonstration to the church that they are truly a full member of it. They must eventually however still assume full personal responsibility for their own salvation by themselves, 'turning from sin and following Jesus Christ', their journey from infancy to 'believing adulthood' being overseen by God's Grace. This will usually involve a 'conversion experience' of some kind, wherein they have a revelation of their own sinfulness and a fuller understanding of God's Grace, through the death of His Son Jesus Christ.

When we reflect upon our life's journey in this way, we can appreciate how graciously God has kept His promise to our parent(s). "And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." Gen.17:7. This is how the New Covenant still works, but each individual must 'believe' as did Abraham and each must be personally responsible to their Saviour Jesus Christ, the pioneer and perfector of our faith, Heb.12:2. Else they yet become renegades and covenant breakers, suffering the possible consequences. Lev.26:14-28.
.

 

Thank you so much for these: In particular https://www.anglican.net/works/john-jewel-a-treatise-of-the-sacraments-1583/#p2

Still clearly understandable today after 436 years. Positively Holy Ghost inspired. Well worth the read if there is anything we want to learn about baptism.

But the one baptism spoken of which remits sins, is that of the spirit.

Because:

.

 

Quite simply the efficacy of a sacrament does not rely on the worthiness of the one who administers it. If it did many of us would not receive sacraments when we thought we were.

In general the Anglican Churches accept the validity of sacraments administered by the Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches. The situation varies with Catholics. They will accept sacraments as valid if their administration does not require a cleric, e.g. baptism, marriage*. However, they do not recognise the validity of those which must be administered by a cleric. So, if I were to be received in the Catholic Church they would consider me baptised but would receive by confirmation as they will not recognise my confirmation.

With the Orthodox there is not a single answer because there is no central authority in the Orthodox Communion. There are sixteen autocephalous Eastern Orthodox churches and five Oriental Orthodox churches meaning there are twenty-one possible answers. I know some do not accept the validity of any Anglican sacraments, including baptism.

*I know that applies to the Latin Church but I am not sure about the Eastern Catholic churches. I think they may require marriage be administered by a priest or bishop as do the Orthodox.

 

All very comforting to know the celebrant can't contaminate the elements. Still I'm glad I don't have to receive a sacrament of any kind consecrated by any of the Borger Popes. They are thankfully long since dead. We may be eternally grateful for their demise as of that of many, many, many of their kind. History is litered and excremented with them.
.

 

The Borgias may have been serious sinners and we should be glad that our priests do not come anywhere close to them.

However, the sanctity, or not, of the one who administers a sacrament has no impact on the graces we receive from it. We are all sinners and no one among is truly worthy to administer any sacrament. Therefore, we are lucky that God's graces do not rely on the behaviour of man.

 

Quite so! 'If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and [Jesus] is not in us'.

I would still have felt very uneasy receiving from Urban the Second, Gregory VII and many others down the line. "You shall know them by their fruit," we were told.

Eating anything which came from any of their hands, would have required superhuman faith to render it a valid communion, I think. I for one would rather believe I had not had a valid communion, than be an unwitting accessory to their unregenerate, godless wickedness.

God worked through some pretty dodgy characters in the Old Testament, but I think there must be a limit in the New. Otherwise there could be no occasion for Christ to ever say "Depart from me you evil doers, I never knew you". Luke 13:27
.

 

I am pretty sure that this was solved during the time of the Novation Controversy.

 

It would be valid if the requirements for validity were met. Receiving God's graces through the sacraments does not depend on the sanctity of the minister who administers the sacrament. Similarly, the feelings of the recipient of the sacrament towards the minister of the sacrament do not affect the validity of the sacrament.

 

So are you saying that Pope Alexander VI, who bribed his way into his position, commissioned assasins to murder his rivals, staged sex shows in the vatigan, installed and used prostitutes there, had a nineteen year old mistress when he was 61 years old, installed her brother as a Cardinal, got syphilis, and ellegedly died accidentally trying to poison one of his cardinals, dished out nonetheless valid sacraments? And he was the Pope, not just a slightly naughty parish priest. I'm all for accepting others faults and cutting my priest a bit of slack, (he's only human after all), but there is a limit, - somewhere.

But you apparently would have dutifully knelt before Alex no.6 to recieve communion. Good luck with that mate! I couldn't find a tripple crown, but that rapacious hypocrite bought his way into having one on his head and he was by no means exceptional among the many multiple rival popes in those days.

I can assure you that my feelings about receiving communion from that particular slime ball would definitely have invalidated anything he poked into the palm my hand or tried to ram down my throat. Of course I would have been murdered by him by roasting at the stake or hanging or being beheaded, but there you go. The Pope can't be wrong, can he.
.

 

And the Donatist controversy. Your Patristic knowledge and command of heresiology and early church history is impressive, I must say.