Sacramental character
Some Christian denominations believe that a sacramental character, an indelible spiritual mark (the meaning of the word character in Latin), is imprinted by any of three of the seven sacraments: baptism, confirmation, and holy orders.
History
The early Christian Church debated the status of lapsed, schismatic and heretical clergy and laity. Two prominent theologians (Cyprian and Augustine) expressed doctrinal opinions in the religious controversies on baptism and holy orders. Cyprian was elevated as the bishop of Carthage, in spite of being a recent convert. His election was contested.<ref name=":0">Template:Cite web</ref> During his bishopric, he taught that "if any one is not with the bishop, he is not in the church".<ref name="Ferguson">Template:Cite book</ref> Cyprian also emphasized that any minister who broke with the Church lost ipso facto the gift of the Holy Spirit which had validated his holy orders.<ref>Woollcombe, K.J. "The Ministry and the Order of the Church in the Works of the Fathers" in The Historic Episcopate Kenneth M. Carey(ed) Dacre Press (1954) pp. 56–7</ref> Augustine of Hippo contrastingly expressed the existence of sacramental character, and emphasized that Christ is always the principal agent.<ref name=":0" />
In Augustine's writings against Manichaeans and Donatists, he analogized military ranks with sacramental character:<ref name=":1">Template:Cite web</ref>Template:Reference page Template:Cquote Augustine would also address Cyprian's view of the sacraments, believing that his understanding was not adequate.<ref name=":1" />Template:Reference page Responding to the Donatist controversy, Augustine believed they "have the baptism of Christ" and "have the sacraments", though they did not have salvation.<ref name=":1" />Template:Reference page He taught against rebaptisms and reordinations to those who also received them from schismatics and heretics.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref>
Basil of Caesarea expressed opinions on the status of lapsed, schismatic and heretical Christians as well. He taught that schismatics "still belonged to the Church".<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> He suggested that previous Trinitarian baptisms only required being received by chrismation; and Dionysius of Rome and Dionysius of Alexandria believed rebaptism of the lapsed, schismatics and heretics as unnecessary.<ref name=":2" />Template:Reference page
In Oriental Orthodoxy Unveiled, Coptic theologian Andrew N.A. Youssef stated: "After the Council of Constantinople, the Church eventually chose to follow the middle path forged by Basil the Great".<ref name=":2">Template:Cite book</ref>Template:Reference page
At the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, the Roman state church's bishops received "Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatians, Novatians, those who call themselves Cathars and Aristae, Quartodeciman or Tetradites, Apollinarians" when "they hand in statements and anathematise every heresy which is not of the same mind as the holy, catholic and apostolic church of God. They are first sealed or anointed with holy chrism on the forehead, eyes, nostrils, mouth and ears".<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>
After the Chalcedonian Schism, Timothy II of Alexandria insisted Chalcedonians are received into the Oriental Orthodox Churches assuming they professed the Trinity, the incarnation, and the consubstantiality of Christ's humanity.<ref name=":2" />Template:Reference page Only Chalcedonian clergy were required to renounce Chalcedon.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> According to Youssef, Chalcedonian clergy "were able to receive communion immediately upon drafting their confession of faith although they were not able to celebrate liturgical sacraments as clergy except after a year of penance"; Timothy II insisted that clergy are received without reordination, as if they were ordained by his own hands.<ref name=":2" />Template:Reference page
Within the Roman Church, the doctrine of the sacramental character was dogmatically defined by the Catholic Church at the 16th century Council of Trent.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>
Among the Eastern Orthodox, the 1672 Synod of Jerusalem declared:<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
Teaching by Christian denomination
Anglicanism
The Book of Common Prayer of the Episcopal Church in the United States teaches that: "The bond which God establishes in Baptism is indissoluble".<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> An Episcopal Dictionary of the Church, A User Friendly Reference of Episcopalians states: "The concept of sacramental validity dates from the third century, when the Church of Rome held that schismatics and heretics could administer valid baptism. This contradicted the position of Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, that the church's sacraments could not be administered by anyone outside the church".<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> The canons of the Church of England also teaches: "No person who has been admitted to the order of bishop, priest, or deacon can ever be divested of the character of his order".<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>
In Anglicanism, the 39 Articles of Religion likewise teaches that the state of an unworthy minister does not discredit the sacraments due to their unworthiness, supposing an indelible mark; Anglican theologian Gerald Bray stated: "If it were, no ministry would be valid, because all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The validity of a sacrament does not lie in the spiritual state of the minister, which is usually unknown and probably unknowable, but in the promises that the sacrament contains".<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
Catholicism
This teaching—dogmatically decreed during the Council of Trent—is expressed as follows in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992):<ref>Template:Cite CCC</ref>
If it is doubtful whether a person has received the sacrament, the sacrament may be administered conditionally (using words such as for conditional baptism: "If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"). However, such an administration is only valid and effective to the extent that no valid administration of the same sacrament has already occurred, as it does not in any event constitute an effective repetition of a valid previous administration of that sacrament.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, explains as follows the significance of the image of "seal", used as an alternative to that of "character":<ref>Template:Cite CCC</ref>
Eastern Orthodoxy
In Eastern Orthodoxy, opinion on this concept varies. The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople teaches that through "extreme oikonomia [economy]" those who are baptized in the Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Old Catholic, Moravian, Anglican, Methodist, Reformed, Presbyterian, Church of the Brethren, Assemblies of God, or Baptist traditions can be received into the Eastern Orthodox Church through the sacrament of chrismation and not through rebaptism.<ref name="Isaiah2000">Template:Cite web</ref> Regarding holy orders, each Eastern Orthodox church determines the validity and efficacy of another non-Orthodox church's ordination.<ref name="Pheidas">Template:Cite web Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref>
Rodopoulos discusses the theory of what he calls the "ineradicable nature of priesthood", which is the theory that "ordination is ineradicable, and should a defrocked priest be restored, his ordination is not repeated". Rodopoulos states that "[t]he [Eastern] Orthodox Church has not declared officially on this matter. The Church of Rome established this doctrine at the Council of Trent (1545– 1563)". Rodopoulos adds: "Only some [Eastern] Orthodox theologians, influenced by Roman Catholic teachings, have accepted this theory. The long-standing practice of the Church, however, as well as its teaching on grace, reject the theory of the ineradicable nature of the priesthood. Priest who are defrocked return to the ranks of the laity or monks".<ref>Template:Cite book</ref>
Calivas believes that "[t]he character of ordination is indelible".<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>
Scouteris considers that: "no evidence concerning the indelible mark theory can be found in Patristic teaching. On the contrary, the canonical data leave no doubt that a defrocked priest or bishop, after the decision of the Church to take back his priesthood, returns to the rank of the laity. The anathematized or the defrocked are in no way considered to maintain their priesthood".<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>
Lutheranism
Lutheran theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg stated that: "in terms of the thought of promise and sending that constantly govern the ordained and claim them for Christ's service, we no longer need to oppose [indelible character] on the Lutheran side, since this point of view finds expression in the Lutheran churches, too. Here there is no repetition of ordination".<ref name="Eckardt2009">Template:Cite web</ref>
Oriental Orthodoxy
Coptic Orthodox theologian Andrew N. A. Yousef states that the Oriental Orthodox Churches recognize baptisms, confirmations and ordinations from the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches;<ref name=":2" />Template:Reference page he also stated that universally, "the Church eventually chose to follow the middle path forged by Basil the Great".<ref name=":2" />Template:Reference page Timothy II of Alexandria received Latin and Greek Chalcedonian Christian laity and clergy without requiring rebaptism, and the Latin and Greek Chalcedonian clergy were welcomed into Oriental Orthodoxy without reordination.<ref name=":2" />Template:Reference page
See also
- Defrocking
- Episcopus vagans
- Sacraments (Catholic Church)
- Lutheran sacraments
- Anglican sacraments
- Conditional sacrament
- Sacramental matter and form
References
<references />