The Necessity of the Sacraments

Backing itself up by reference to the Council of Trent, the current Catechism of the Catholic Church declares in no. 1129 that “the Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation” (italics in original). The Catechism elaborates on the necessity of baptism in no. 1257:

The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are “reborn of water and the Spirit.” God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments. [italics in original]

For Pray Tell readers who teach (whether at a college / university, a high school, as part of a catechetical program or just as part of your ministry to the Church), how do you present the teaching on the necessity of the sacraments?

For my part, I talk to my undergraduates about the act of kissing someone you love. When two people love each other, at some point they typically kiss. Parents kiss children. Children kiss parents. Lovers kiss each other. The kiss is thus an expression of a love that already exists. In some cultures, of course, a kiss on both cheeks is at times a matter of courtesy so let’s restrict ourselves to romantic kisses: these kisses presuppose love. Likewise, sacraments presuppose faith. Sacraments presuppose that participants have a relationship of trust and love with God.

On the other hand, romantic love requires kisses. It requires hand-holding, chocolates, flowers, etc. As Music in Catholic Worship reminds in no. 4: “People in love makes signs of love, not only to express their love but also to deepen it.  Love never expressed dies.” A relationship between two lovers that is devoid of kisses and other tender actions is evacuated of its meaning as a love relationship. Likewise, faith requires sacraments. Sacraments are gestures that seal, heal, or renew the relationship of trust and love with God.

Importantly, sacraments are properly ecclesial acts. That is, sacraments presuppose not only a relationship of trust and love with God but also a connection with others who have such a relationship with God. Sacraments are not merely about my relationship with God. Indeed, they are primarily about our relationship with God and hence our relationships with each other. These relationships, if they are not to be empty of meaning, require sacramental celebration. If lovers never engage in expressions of love, their love dies. If the Church ceases to celebrate sacraments, the Church ceases to be Church.

Yet God is not bound to the sacraments.

In addition to the baptismal mandates in the gospels (eg., John 3:5 and Matthew 28:19-20), we have the sheep and the goats of Matthew 25 with no mention of baptism. Without getting into a full-blown discussion of Karl Rahner’s “anonymous Christian,” I talk to my students about the importance of following one’s conscience. Those persons who judge that they are not in love with God (perhaps because they judge that no God exists), can still love those whom God loves by promoting compassion and justice in the world. Such love is not Christian in the full sense of the word “Christian,” but it is still love for God. If that love becomes aware of itself as love for the God of Jesus Christ, then the necessity of sacraments kicks in. In any case, it is a question of following the dictates of one’s conscience.

So, how do you handle the necessity of the sacraments?

Timothy Brunk

Dr. Timothy Brunk is Associate Professor of Liturgical and Sacramental Theology in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at Villanova University.  He holds a doctorate from Marquette University, a Master of Arts degree in pastoral studies from Seattle University, a Master of Arts in theology from Boston College, and a Bachelor’s degree from Amherst College.  He is the author of fifteen journal articles and two books, including The Sacraments and Consumer Culture (Liturgical Press, 2020), which the Catholic Media Association recognized at its annual meeting as the first-place winner in the category of books on the sacraments.

Please leave a reply.

Comments

9 responses to “The Necessity of the Sacraments”

  1. Todd Orbitz

    “Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament.”

    is a far cry from:

    “Those persons who judge that they are not in love with God (perhaps because they judge that no God exists), can still love those whom God loves by promoting compassion and justice in the world. Such love is not Christian in the full sense of the word “Christian,” but it is still love for God. If that love becomes aware of itself as love for the God of Jesus Christ, then the necessity of sacraments kicks in.”

    I italicize the part that differs from the Catechism, and include the preceding two sentences because it provides context. I do not argue with the assertion found in the preceding two sentences. The idea that the necessity of the Sacraments “kicks in” is problematic in light of the catechetical teaching found in CCC 1257.

    Reply
  2. Jim McKay

    What is problematic?

    The only thing I can see is a difference between “those to whom the gospel has proclaimed” and “love becomes aware of itself as love for the God of Jesus Christ.” I really don’t agree that those are different, but is that the point you are making? If not how is it problematic?

    In other words, when do you think baptism becomes necessary?

    Reply
    1. Scott Smith

      @Jim McKay – comment #2:

      Saint John Paul II, in Redemptoris Missio Paragraph 10, puts it well I think (and expands, if logically, from the provisions on this point from the Council):

      The universality of salvation means that it is granted not only to those who explicitly believe in Christ and have entered the Church. Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all. But it is clear that today, as in the past, many people do not have an opportunity to come to know or accept the gospel revelation or to enter the Church. The social and cultural conditions in which they live do not permit this, and frequently they have been brought up in other religious traditions. For such people salvation in Christ is accessible by virtue of a grace which, while having a mysterious relationship to the Church, does not make them formally part of the Church but enlightens them in a way which is accommodated to their spiritual and material situation. This grace comes from Christ; it is the result of his Sacrifice and is communicated by the Holy Spirit. It enables each person to attain salvation through his or her free cooperation.

      That is baptism becomes necessary, not when the Gospel has been proclaimed, but when it is possible for a person to respond to it. For example, in many cultures even today, if one was a woman or a child etc it may not be possible to seek baptism (i.e. even if one had heard the Gospel in a technical sense).

      However, this requirement is stronger than in the post, which would only seem to make baptism necessary when it starts to bind in conscience (i.e. ignoring the responsibility to properly form ones conscience).

      Reply
    2. Todd Orbitz

      @Jim McKay – comment #2:
      I see those two things as entirely different.

      Reply
  3. Todd Flowerday

    Let me attempt a corollary …

    Believers are morally bound not to be obstacles for the sacraments. That standard applies to all, even to bishops, even the most casual Christian. As a Catholic in Full Communion, I am honor bound to present the Gospel in the most attractive and convincing way as grace allows.

    When believers withdraw from the sacraments because of the scandal of bishops, clergy, or other lay people, it is one of the most seriously grave matters of morality … assuming we accept the centrality of the sacramental life.

    Reply
  4. Jim McKay

    Forgive how dense I am, but I still don’t grasp the difference. I thought it was the difference between the preaching and the response to it, but that does not seem to be it if I understand you (and JP2) correctly. I don’t want to put you on the spot, I am just trying to understand Todd’s point.

    For you, baptism is necessary from the time that you are obliged to form your conscience? I find it easier to think “necessary” and “bind in conscience” are the same, so I’m not sure why you say they are different.

    FWIW, I think the gospel has not been proclaimed until its message has evoked a loving response. The words may fulfill the obligation of the preacher to preach, but conversion is the point, not just getting the words out there. That conversion inevitably leads to baptism is why baptism is “necessary” IMO. I am not grasping the claim that it is necessary without conversion.

    Reply
    1. Scott Smith

      @Jim McKay – comment #5:

      Happy to try! We might be talking about slightly different things, which may be causing the misunderstanding. Taking your comment point by point:

      For you, baptism is necessary from the time that you are obliged to form your conscience?

      Baptism, or at least the desire for it where possible, is necessary to come within God promise of salvation (though not his mercy). Therefore it is necessary in this sense after whatever time it becomes possible to seek it and before it becomes impossible to seek it (if any such time exists for an individual).

      I find it easier to think “necessary” and “bind in conscience” are the same, so I’m not sure why you say they are different.

      All things which bind in conscience are necessary, but not all necessary things bind in conscience. Because our consciences can be badly formed, and therefore wrong, and thus it is necessary for us to seek to have a well formed conscience to the extent possible.

      People can do some truly horrible things while bound by conscience.

      FWIW, I think the gospel has not been proclaimed until its message has evoked a loving response.

      People are free to reject the Gospel, even if it has been proclaimed as well as human nature and God’s grace allows. In which case it has undoubtedly been proclaimed – Just not lovingly accepted.

      That conversion inevitably leads to baptism is why baptism is “necessary” IMO. I am not grasping the claim that it is necessary without conversion.

      As above Baptism, or at least the desire for it where possible, is necessary to come within God promise of salvation (though not his mercy). Conversion is also necessary in this regard (i.e. baptism is necessary but not sufficient).

      Reply
      1. Jim McKay

        @Scott Smith – comment #6:

        Your use of “God’s promise of salvation (though not his mercy)” is certainly bewildering, given what you quoted from JP2 above. That may be the crux of the issue, but I am not going to pursue beyond saying I don’t understand what you mean.

        The perspective of the original post is that baptism is the sign of a loving relationship. That it may be used in an unloving manner, ie without conversion or with a malformed conscience, is interesting, but really does not say anything about the necessity of baptism. I’m inclined toward seeing even sham baptisms as possible moments of grace (one saint converted during a mock baptism) but I wouldn’t take it so far as saying that baptism is necessary apart from conversion.

        There may be reasons why baptism is necessary as soon as the conscience begins forming, but i don’t see much to support that idea. Perhaps we even agree! I can’t really tell why you or Todd object to the notion that baptism is necessary as a part of a loving recognition of God.

      2. Scott Smith

        @Jim McKay – comment #7:

        Yeah, I think we are talking past each other somehow.

        I think perhaps you are talking about when one might actually seek baptism, whereas Todd and I are speaking about the extent to which baptism is necessary for salvation.

Posted

in

by

Timothy Brunk

Tags:

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading