In the Catholic Church there are ways of hearing Confessions that are not "face to face" and are even very anonymous. Canon law 964 in the Latin Church states: > §1. The proper place to hear sacramental confessions is a church or oratory. > > §2. The conference of bishops is to establish norms regarding the confessional; it is to take care, however, that there are always confessionals with a fixed grate between the penitent and the confessor in an open place so that the faithful who wish to can use them freely. > > §3. Confessions are not to be heard outside a confessional without a just cause. Many people go to Confession behind a a fixed grate in a confessional and without going to a specific Confessor one has. I have always found that weird, ie the idea of not going to a Confessor for the Sacrament of Confession. "§3. Confessions are not to be heard outside a confessional without a just cause." sounds a bit strange to me as I always thought that one should try to go to a specific Confessor and perhaps even confess after session with spiritual direction. Now, it seems that the norm is not like that at all. **What does the Catholic Church actually say about the idea that we should have a specific Confessor?**

[Humbert of Silva Candida](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humbert_of_Silva_Candida) was an important medieval theologian, best known for his involvement in the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054. He was also a vocal proponent of a number of views, such as papal authority and clerical celibacy. On this latter point, Everett Ferguson writes that he "said that sacraments administered by married clerics were invalid," and then continues: > Humbert's later work *Against the Simoniacs* in three books made a similar claim: Any cleric appointed to office by a layman, no matter how honestly, could not administer valid sacraments, a doctrine that revived the viewpoint of Donatism, which made the validity of sacraments depend on the status of the administrator. ([*Church History*, I, 19.V.B](https://books.google.com/books?id=mRQwAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT351)) This does sound like Donatism to me, but I don't see any indication on Wikipedia or elsewhere that Humbert's views actually violated Catholic dogma. In light of subsequent clarifications of the doctrines of the sacraments, are these views of Humbert's considered problematic in modern Catholicism?

I was reading into the history of the Society of Saint Pius X, and I came across a rather dense portion regarding the validity of their sacraments that mentioned that Reconciliation and Marriage specifically require canonical jurisdiction in order to be valid, yet the other sacraments do not. My understanding was that all sacraments are valid if performed by a priest, but not necessarily licit unless they had canonical jurisdiction (with the obvious exception of Baptism). As I am pretty sure that Holy Orders is still valid if done without approval, it just results in an automatic excommunication. So what makes Reconciliation and Marriage special that they are not valid unless done under proper jurisdiction? Does this mean Rome does not recognize there to be valid confessions and marriages in any of the apostolic churches not in communion with Rome (Easter Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, etc.)? Because I was under the impression that Rome did view all of their sacraments as valid in light of their apostolic succession. Or does excommunication invalidate the ability for clergy to perform those specific sacraments? If someone could explain the nuances to me that would be appreciated.

Was John 13:9 ("Simon Peter saith to him: Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head.") ever used to justify baptism by effusion on other body parts than the head?

Sacramental theology is one of the key differences between different branches of Christianity. Different groups disagree even on what is meant by a "sacrament", and by how many they are or what should be considered a sacrament. There is pretty wide agreement that Baptism and Holy Communion are sacraments, though some of the more radical Protestants such as Anabaptists would consider these *ordinances* not *sacraments*. Among Protestants, Reformed Churches generally recognize these as the only sacraments, while Lutherans sometimes also include Confession & Absolution as a third. Others, such as Moravians or Anglicans, may have more. However, my question was stirred up by the non-Protestant Nicene Churches: The Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Assyrian Church of the East. These churches all agree that there are seven sacraments (or *mysteries* in the Eastern Orthodox Church, "mystery" being the Greek equivalent to the Latin "sacrament"). The Catholic, EO, and OO agree on the list of the seven sacraments/mysteries: Baptism, Confirmation, Communion, Penance, Marriage, Ordination, and Extreme Unction (this last one seems to differ considerably between the different traditions). However, the Assyrian Church of the East has a slightly different list of seven sacraments : They include the Holy Leaven (*Malka*) and the Sign of the Cross in place of Marriage and Confirmation. **This made me curious how the traditions of the East and the broad West came to different lists.** It's interesting that the Churches of the East were also the first of these traditions to branch off from the West, with their split happening regarding the Council of Ephesus in 431. **Could it be that the idea that their should be seven sacraments arose prior to the Council of Ephesus, but the actual list of them had not been settled yet at that time?** I'm curious about the ancient history of the idea of an enumeration of the sacraments. I have observed that St. Augustine, at the very least, is much more generous in applying the word "sacrament" to things than later traditions are. This suggests that, during his time, the word had not yet obtained its technical meaning. In conclusion, my main question is, **when and where do we find the origin of the idea that there are seven sacraments? And, when do we first find people attempting to catalogue the full list of sacraments?**

If a person wasn't repentant (sorry for their sins and living sinfully still) when they got baptized/confirmed/received the Eucharist in a cathedral but later on they repent (feel sorry for their sins) do all they have to do now is go to confession? Are they a valid catholic? Can you cite some sources too if you can please. Thanks.

For example, thanking God for food. > For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer. (1 Tim 4:4–5,ESV)

Of late, it has become a rule rather than exception to celebrate Holy Mass along with the Sacrament of Matrimony, in many places. It is beneficial on Sundays for the invitees who may come from far off places. But, with back-to-back Services to cater to increased number of the faithful, many churches do not allow marriage on Sundays. That puts additional burden on weekdays on churches which may have to accommodate too many number of weddings combined with Holy Mass, each running into hours. Moreover, with inter-faith marriages increasing in frequency, it becomes a matter of worry for the Celebrant to ' convince' non-Catholics (and sometimes Non-Christians) who come forward to receive Holy Communion. It is also not clear if the Holy Mass can be interluded with the prayers of Sacrament of Matrimony, with the Celebrant digressing from the Missal here and there to insert prayers ' suitable to the special occasion' My question is : What are the rules of Catholic Church on celebration of Holy Mass along with the administration of Sacrament of Matrimony ?

[Stephen Colbert's wikipedia bio](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Colbert#Personal_life) states: > **Colbert is a practicing Roman Catholic** and a Sunday school teacher **and an ordained minister with the Universal Life Church Monastery**. These two (bolded) things, according to various media reports and the blogsite of the Universal Life Church Monastery are factually correct, so I'm not asking if they are possible, but whether according to official Catholic doctrine the two are reconcileable? By way of background information: > The Universal Life Church Monastery (ULC) is a non-denominational, non-profit religious organization famous worldwide for its provision of free, legal ordinations to its vast membership over the internet. The ULC, recognizing the importance of maintaining open hearts and minds, embraces any individual, no matter his or her spiritual background, who wishes to become a member of this family of faith. Since its founding, the Universal Life Church has ordained more than 20 million ministers. - [www.themonastery.org/aboutUs](http://www.themonastery.org/aboutUs) The Picture is of Colbert officiating at the wedding of Mike Cassesso and MaiLien Le using a licence granted to him in the state of New York on the basis of his ULC credential. Clearly Colbert was not officiating as a priest in the Catholic sacrament of marriage, but do his actions in conducting a non-Catholic wedding violate any particular Church teachings? If so, would it be regarded as a venial sin or a mortal one?

Just gone through the sacrament of marriage in the US and one thing that I learned here is that they expect the parishes where my wife and I were baptized at to have record of all our sacraments; and that if we had done communion and confirmation in different parishes they would have let our baptismal parishes known. Even every Google search that I make regarding this (mostly from US and Europe) mention the same thing, and for a marriage or confirmation to go under the radar of the parish of baptism is an exceptional event. For example... this stackexchange post: https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/77701/how-does-the-catholic-church-handle-documents-worldwide-nowadays Well, my wife and I were both baptized and confirmed in the Philippines. With the pretext presented by the parish here in the US (as well as my Google searches), I had my aunt help us get annotated baptismal certificates from our parishes in our home country. As it turns out, the baptismal parishes do NOT have any record of our confirmation because they were not done in the same parish -- and my aunt had to go to the parishes where we had our confirmation just go get certificates for those. So my question is... if record keeping of sacraments between parishes is supposedly part of canon law (as per my Google searches as well), why doesn't it seem to be a universal thing? It was a roller coaster ride finding these out during marriage prep, and had we not allotted enough time for it then it would've caused significant delays. We even had to explain this to the parishes here in the US that we got married in and where we did our prep (our home parish where we needed permission from) and both priests were quite surprised. This also brings up the question: will the parish here in the US be able to notify our baptismal parishes back in the Philippines that we are married? Will they care if they haven't been recording our communion and confirmation anyway?

In the Roman-Catholic Church, the earliest writings that explicitly mention the seven sacraments come from Peter Lombard’s “Setences”. I am curious what are the earliest reference in Eastern-Orthodoxy towards these sacraments and if the Catholic Church had an influence in the development of these terms, on Estern-Orthodoxy.

I just noticed that while we are told that the great commission applies to all believers in the sense that we are to share the gospel, we don't normally baptize those we help believe. Instead, we bring them to church to be baptized by our clergy. Is there any basis for this practice? Note: If your denomination allows your laity to baptize other people as a normative/regular thing, this question is likely not relevant to you. I would love to hear answers from denominations where clergy would normally administer the sacraments.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the sacrament of Catholic confirmation was temporarily changed, in some locations. The changes involved no touch what so ever, instead implements were used. This violates Code of Canon Law, even Pope Paul 6 forbid the use of implements. How were those confirmations during Covid *"really"* valid? There are priests who have contended it was not valid. Canon Law specifies human touch to administer the oil. The Bible specifies human touch. Also a document was released this year by the Vatican which specified the sacraments **must be done** according to Canon Law. Someone please make this make sense.

My son was asking me this question and I'm actually not sure of the answer so I figured I'd ask here for him. In all the years I've taught confirmation nobody's tried using their same name, but if you're named after a saint, my assumption is that that saint is already your Christian name - in Baptism, therefore you'd be doubling up. Now, I'd imagine there's no rule on this, if there is, it probably short circuits the question, but if there isn't, what are the pros and cons of choosing your own name as a confirmation patron?

Must a man first be a priest before being consecrated a bishop? In other words: Who exactly can receive episcopal consecration?

Most Protestants recognise only two sacraments, saying something like this (from the Anglican 39 Articles): > There are two sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, > that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord But in the Gospels it is written: John 20:21-23 > Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am > sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the > Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if > you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” > Mt 16,18-20 > And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my > church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give > you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will > be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be > loosed in heaven.” > Mt 18,18 > "Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound > in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in > heaven. For who tells that was introduced by Pope Innocent III: Acts 19,18 > Some believers, too, came forward to admit in detail how they had used > spells > John 1,1:9 > If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us > our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. > 2 Corinthians 5,18 > All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and > gave us the ministry of reconciliation Why isn't confession/penance considered a sacrament by most Protestants? Why don't they think these verses institute the sacrament of confession?

[Ex Opere Operato](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_opere_operato) is a theological claim that a sacrament is efficacious by the nature of it being a sacrament, not the minister or recipient. But what is the biblical basis for this idea (if any?)?

There's some movement to a "restored" order for the reception of the Sacraments of Initiation, but with some sort of assumption that it should be received as early as age seven. I was listening to the Catholic Man Show [episode on teenagers](https://open.spotify.com/episode/5fuDGFpVtJnyYO5V4xZT7k?si=9983967898bc43a3) one of the hosts said that he didn't know the answer to this question and didn't get back to answering it. I teach a Confirmation class to high schoolers, the kind of material we go cover would go way over the heads of seven year olds (it barely resonates with teenagers), so I don't wholly understand how the same sort of formation would be possible for younger kids and as far as I can tell there is absolutely no formal preparation for confirmands in the Latin Rite as it currently stands. When I watch a movie like, the Song of Bernadette or hear stories about St. Therese, where these saints received the sacraments of initiation as teenagers, I have to think that the old ways were best. However, the normal age for confirmation hasn't really changed has it - or was there a period when Confirmation was received at an earlier age?

Which sacraments can an intersex individual receive in the Catholic Church?

## The situation According to Catholicism, during the Consecration, if for some reason, the priest consecrated only one of the species validly, would that configure an imperfect Sacrifice or the Sacrifice wouldn't even take place? Some examples I'm thinking to achieve this situation: * Using a valid matter for only one of the species (e.g. bread and cider or barley bread and wine) * Using a valid form for only one of the species (e.g. making a mistake on Words of Institution of one of the species) * A priest who dies in the middle of the Consecration I think is safe to say that the second example is the most common way such a thing could happen. And that being the case, it's totally possible for someone discover the possible invalidity, which is exactly what is in question, as it is happening. Take that as the general situation for this question. ----- ## My research ### Catholic Encyclopedia In my research about it, I came to this article about the Sacrifice of the Mass from The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1911). There are two important parts (emphasis mine) that seem to answer my question: > ### The existence of the Mass > [...] Furthermore, the unbloody Sacrifice of the Eucharistic Christ is in its nature a transient action, while the Sacrament of the Altar continues as something permanent after the sacrifice, and can even be preserved in monstrance and ciborium. Finally, this difference also deserves mention: communion under one form only is the reception of the whole sacrament, whereas, **without the use of the two forms of bread and wine** (the symbolic separation of the Body and Blood), the mystical slaying of the victim, and therefore **the Sacrifice of the Mass, does not take place**. > ### The constituent parts of the Mass > [...] Not only older theologians such as Frassen, Gotti, and Bonacina, but also later theologians such as Schouppen, Stentrup and Fr. Schmid, have supported the **untenable theory that when one of the consecrated elements is invalid**, such as barley bread or cider, **the consecration of the valid element not only produces the Sacrament, but also the (mutilated) sacrifice**. Their chief argument is that the sacrament in the Eucharist is inseparable in idea from the sacrifice. But they entirely overlooked the fact that Christ positively prescribed the twofold consecration for the sacrifice of the Mass (not for the sacrament), and especially the fact that in the consecration of one element only the intrinsically essential relation of the Mass to the sacrifice of the Cross is not symbolically represented. Since it was no mere death from suffocation that Christ suffered, but a bloody death, in which His veins were emptied of their Blood, this condition of separation must receive visible representation on the altar, as in a sublime drama. This condition is fulfilled only by the double consecration, which brings before our eyes the Body and the Blood in the state of separation, and thus represents the mystical shedding of blood. Consequently, **the double consecration is an absolutely essential element of the Mass as a relative sacrifice**. But just before this last citation, it actually is preceded by a disclaimer: > While the Consecration as such can be shown with certainty to be the act of Sacrifice, **the necessity of the twofold consecration** can be demonstrated *only as highly probable*. ### Summa Theologiae I tried to find something about it in the Summa, and the best I could get was a response where St. Thomas describes that once the consecration has started it _should_ be finished, even requiring another priest to do it if necessary. But, this could be a necessity in terms of proper way to celebrate Mass, not that it would not be a valid Sacrifice, at least that's how it seems to me. Also, @Geremia remembered me about Missal's De Defectibus which proposes basically the same thing. > If the priest be stricken by death or grave sickness before the consecration of our Lord's body and blood, there is no need for it to be completed by another. But if this happens after the consecration is begun, for instance, when the body has been consecrated and before the consecration of the blood, or even after both have been consecrated, then the celebration of the mass ought to be finished by someone else. Hence, as is laid down (Decretal vii, q. 1), we read the following decree of the (Seventh) Council of Toledo: "We consider it to be fitting that when the sacred mysteries are consecrated by priests during the time of mass, if any sickness supervenes, in consequence of which they cannot finish the mystery begun, let it be free for the bishop or another priest to finish the consecration of the office thus begun. For nothing else is suitable for completing the mysteries commenced, unless the consecration be completed either by the priest who began it, or by the one who follows him: because they cannot be completed except they be performed in perfect order. For since we are all one in Christ, the change of persons makes no difference, since unity of faith insures the happy issue of the mystery. Yet let not the course we propose for cases of natural debility, be presumptuously abused: and let no minister or priest presume ever to leave the Divine offices unfinished, unless he be absolutely prevented from continuing. If anyone shall have rashly presumed to do so, he will incur sentence of excommunication." > > Summa Theologiae, Tertia Pars, Q. 83, A. 6 ### Priests/Theologians opinions A good priest that I trust (friend of mine), said that such a case would configure a "gravely injured Sacrifice". So another similar opinion to the theologians quoted before (mutilated Sacrifice). I also asked another priest online and he said that the sacrifice would not happen in this case. I addressed this question directly to other trusted individuals, and still waiting a response. Will answer myself if I encounter something clear about this situation. ## Concluding questions - Is there anything said about this by the magisterium (even if indirectly)? - Is there an actual answer to this question, or it's a disputed thing among theologians? - Basically, can it be answered (with certainty) at all? If we can arrive at a definitive conclusion, and it is that the Sacrifice doesn't take place, then, it would follow that _in principle_ it would not be enough to fulfill the Sunday obligation if that was the case, right? Take into consideration the example I proposed that is most probable, where the priest commits an error in the form unintentionally, and anyone who notices does so as it happens. Then, anyone who's ignorant of the deficiency in the form (either by not knowing it, or knowing but not noticing the deficiency) would not be liable. That's not in question. But consider then a well informed Catholic who noticed the error. How far the Sunday obligation would impel them to go to another celebration? Only if they have the possibility to do so? Having planning other activities would be enough to say they can't? I know that if it happened to me, I would do my best to go to a another celebration out of Love of God, and because of the uncertainty that led me ask this question. But it seems to me that someone who did their part trying to participate the Sacrifice of Mass, even if it was invalid and they were well informed to notice that when it happened, they couldn't be liable for a mistake of the priest. Am I right about it?