Talk:Sacraments of the Catholic Church

Validity and liceity of administration of the sacraments
I found there is a similar section in Minister (Catholic Church). I suggest to combine these two section together and redirect one to the other. ppa (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Seven sacraments
Seven sacraments redirects here, yet the Roman Catholic Church is not the only communion that recognizes this number. Is there a reason why it cannot stand alone as its own article? I'd be willing to do that. fishhead64 (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be fine for Seven Sacraments to redirect to a general article on sacraments, Lord knows there are plenty of them already. Just be sure that wherever the references to Seven Sacraments are referring to the Catholic Church, that those links keep coming to this article.--EastmeetsWest (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think Fishhead is absolutely correct. I believe it is Romanocentric for Seven sacraments to redirect here.  I endorse either proposal above, that Seven sacraments go to its own article or to Sacrament.  However, I feel I should also point out the the opening to Sacrament is also POV toward the Catholic position.  (Incidentally, should I appear to be an anti-papist bigot, I was born, raised, and am a practicing Roman Catholic.)   Un  sch  ool  02:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Catholics can be "self-hating", Unschool. You're being raised Catholic should have nothing to do with discussions about NPOV. Everything must be considered on its own merits, not from this or that POV. Resolver-Aphelion (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Sacraments in the Catholic Church
Since Christ is the centre of all Christian life, sacraments are of Jesus. They do however happen in the Catholic Church. I'd rather see this article re-titled Sacraments in the Catholic Church. Thankyou. Alan347 (talk) 10:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I have created a redirect of that name to the current article. As far as an eventual renaming of the article, that will take some discussion. I have some thoughts, but I am on vacation right now so I will have to come back later when I have more time. -Pax85 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a problem with the first paragraph: "Though not every individual has to receive every sacrament, ". One of the sacraments is Holy Orders, not available to women, and precluding men from marriage. One is marriage. How could anyone receive all seven. Trishm (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Deacons and some priests receive all seven. Married men may be ordained in certain circumstances. Elizium23 (talk) 14:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Sacraments of the Catholic Church - the table
Esoglou - As to your recent revert, the information as stated was inaccurate in that it is not just a RC priest per se that can administer these Sacraments, but also any priest who has achieved a higher rank (who is also a priest) such as Monsignors, Bishops, Archbishops and Cardinals. Also to put Bishop first in the Sacraments that are indicated and then priest second is like citing military ranks as a Sargeant at the bottom and a private above him. It is backwards.

I have been a Roman Catholic and educated in Catholic Schools, and I can tell you that it is written incorrectly and looks weird to any Catholic who has been educated as such.

Another thing, if you have ever seen a Papal Mass, many higher ranks of priests give communion (Sacrament of the Eucharist). Also, in cases where, friends or relatives are a Bishop, he might well perform the Sacrament of Matrimony or a Baptism as a courtesy and with permission to do so. Though, it is true that in most cases, it would be a simple priest, it is not always a simple priest as stated in the examples I just gave. There are more examples. Another thing is these higher ranks of priest also regularly say Mass. It is a responsibility that stays with them their entire life after they receive the Sacrament of Holy Orders no matter how high up the ladder they go. Because a priest becomes a Bishop does not mean he loses his responsibility to perform the Mass and the Communion (Holy Eucharist) and the Sacrament of Penance. It would not be uncommon for an Archbishop to hear the confession of a Bishop rather than for a simple priest to do it. These responsibilities stay with all of the higher ranks of priests mentioned for their entire life, unless they have some special dispensation for their health, or some other extraordinary exception.

The table was very misleading as shown. I reinserted the information in the section you reverted, and, along with the retaining the priest below and taking out the Bishop, except for the Sacrament of Holy Orders and the Sacrament of Confirmation. You cannot have an understanding of the hierachy of the RC Church and leave it the way it was. It was misleading, inaccurate and will look silly to an informed Catholic.Mugginsx (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * In Wikipedia, we must follow what reliable published sources state. For Catholic canon law, the most reliable sources are the Code of Canon Law and the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches.  As an example, what the Code of Canon Law says of the minister of baptism is:
 * ''Can. 861 §1 The ordinary minister of baptism is a Bishop, a priest or a deacon, without prejudice to the provision of can. 530, n. 1.
 * ''§2 If the ordinary minister is absent or impeded, a catechist or some other person deputed to this office by the local Ordinary, may lawfully confer baptism; indeed, in a case of necessity, any person who has the requisite intention may do so. Pastors of souls, especially parish priests, are to be diligent in ensuring that Christ's faithful are taught the correct way to baptize.
 * Canon 530 n. 1, which is referred to in canon 861 §1, reads:
 * ''Can. 530 The functions especially entrusted to the parish priest are as follows:
 * ''1° the administration of baptism; ...
 * This is already cited in the Wikipedia article, and we are not allowed in Wikipedia to replace what reliable sources say with our personal ideas or our own personal interpretations.
 * That is the essential point. I would add, as a matter of somewhat lesser importance, that it is misleading to present (as in the edit "Where priest are mentioned, it also includes priests that have achieved a higher rank, such as Monsignor, Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal or the Pope") the difference made by episcopal ordination as no more than the granting of a title such as that of "Monsignor" or of a rank such as the cardinalate or of a wider responsibility within the episcopate such as that of a metropolitan archbishop or a pope. See Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1536.  Esoglou (talk) 08:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Bolderdash. I suggest you have a good source but you do not understand what you are reading. I have been a Catholic longer than some people here have been alive.  I went to Catholic school.  We have in our family  priests, including a Jesuit priest, and two nuns.  You have no idea what you are talking about.  It is comical for you to tell me what is or is not an appropriate term to use with regard to the ranks of the order of the priesthood.  They use the term themselves.


 * Further, when I saw that the table put a Bishop first in the Sacrament of Penance and Baptism and Anointing of the Sick I laughed out loud. You cite the Canon above:  Can. 530 The functions especially entrusted to the parish priest are as follows: 1° the administration of baptism; ...   but then you have a Bishop in there! He administers the Sacrament of Confirmation and Holy Orders and first Holy Communion of the Catholic but then he only administers it in his own Masses or to help with a large congregation.  You do it again with the Anointing of the Sick. There would have to be many many more bishops to anoint all of the sick and dying that there presently is. What exactly is a Metropolitan Archbishop?  I have never heard them defined in that way!!  The same is true with Penance where you contradict yourself once again.


 * I have been here too long not to see an editor looking for a disagreement. I see your former topic ban on abortion.  There are some very good editors on this article and one of them is an administrator who will perhaps intervene.  I have no intention of engaging you further.  I make it a point to work with experience and open-minded editors so I will leave you to the ignorance of your statements with a suggestion for someone to correct it.  My advice is that you might try asking another Catholic to interprete for you the source you cite because it is obvious you do not understand it.  Sorry, but I did try. Mugginsx (talk) 09:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Esoglou is correct here. There is ontologically no difference among priests, archpriests, and monsignors. There is also no difference between bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and the Pope. Holy Orders has three levels, and those are the only ones that need covering by a table of ministers of the sacraments. A bishop is the ordinary minister of all sacraments merely because his ordination also carries the mark of deacon and priest. You can see this liturgically as a priest can perform duties normally delegated to deacons, and a bishop can perform all duties normally delegated to priests and deacons both. Now, you tout your extensive Catholic knowledge but you do not know what a metropolitan archbishop is? The mind boggles. Perhaps you should do more study on this. Get to know what a pallium is and watch when it is conferred next year. Now for the question of content. I believe the table can be rendered less confusing if we said above the top, e.g., "A priest can perform any action a deacon would, and a bishop can perform any action of a priest." And then cite the true ordinary minister in the table. Hopefully this would satisfy you both. I do not see any need to confuse the issue by mentioning monsignors, archbishops, cardinals, or the Pope. These are not ranks of Holy Orders and would only serve to confuse the reader. Elizium23 (talk) 14:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I never said there were differences in their responsibilities as priests. The hierarchy determines different responsibilities in addition to those they have as a priest.  A Bishop can administer the Sacrament of Holy Orders, a priest cannot.  Their responsibilities vary as they go up the line but they all maintain their duties as priests.  That is not what the table implies to a non-Catholic.  In the table, it looks like ONLY a Bishop or a priest can administer the Sacrament of Baptism (with the one proviso for emergencies, that only a Bishop or a priest can administer the Sacrament of Penance or the Sacrament of Anoiting of the sick.  That is misleading as given. A deacon can be a man studying to become a priest or a part of a lay order.  He is not yet a priest and cannot perform any of the Sacraments except Baptism under the same exception that any person can perform Baptism, in the case of an unbaptized child or person who is dying.  The information is incorrect as stated in the table. Mugginsx (talk) 15:15, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please note the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary ministers. That is what the table is about.  In the Latin Church, the deacon is an ordinary minister of baptism, though not in the Eastern Catholic Churches, and is not limited to the emergency situations in which anyone, even if not a Catholic, may administer baptism.  Catechists and others delegated by the bishop may also administer baptism in normal non-emergency situations, but they, unlike the deacon, are extraordinary ministers.  Esoglou (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It is so convaluted even a Catholic cannot understand it.  It violates Manual of Style Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording.  I have never seen such a mess in that table - trying to differeniate between the eastern and western churches is only making it more complex and hard to understand.  Articles are not for editors they are for ordinary people to read.  It should be cleaned up or deleted.  My final word here.  Anyway, thanks for a civil disagreement.  I don't mind a civil discussion but I have other things I want to do today on Wiki before the power goes off here due to the Storm. Mugginsx (talk) 17:02, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can we start by splitting the table into West and East? The many exceptions for the ECC are indeed confusing. Elizium23 (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you wish, go ahead and see the result. I find it hard to imagine what would be the advantage.  There are only two "exceptions" (i.e., differences, because the Latin practice is no more "the rule" than the Eastern practice): for baptism (deacons as ordinary ministers only in the West) and matrimony (in the West, the ministers are in all circumstances the spouses; in the East, the minister is in ordinary circumstances the clergyman).
 * I have removed the unsourced and inaccurate statement about archimandrites, a title given to some celibate clergy in Byzantine Eastern Catholic Churches, and a word that I cannot find mentioned in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches. Even if there are any Catholic archimandrites who have "subjects" - which I perhaps wrongly doubt - they cannot confer Holy Orders (sacra ordinatio is the term in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches), but only minor orders, exactly as in the Latin Church, in which these minor orders or ministries are likewise conferred by major religious superiors on their subjects (''Ministeria quaedam, IX).  Esoglou (talk) 08:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We may also want to look at Minister (Catholic Church) which contains a similar table (couldn't this be a transcluded template instead, so that it is consistently maintained?) Elizium23 (talk) 21:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have looked at it and made some necessary corrections. I think it was unwise of whoever drew it up to attempt to distinguish ordinary/extraordinary and valid/illicit/valid-but-illicit in the same breath. There are other differences also between what the two tables set out to do.  Esoglou (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Re: Template - Article is confusing and not written according to the Manual of Style
Various Sections, in particular the table is so convoluted that even a life-long and educated Catholic cannot understand it. It violates Manual of Style in particular, ''Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording''. I have never seen such a mess. The Lead does not even get around to explaining exactly what a Sacrament is WP:LEAD The table is especially egregious - It is misleading and trying to differentiate between the eastern and western churches is only making it more complex and hard to understand.

The word Ordinary means "the Usual" - you are using the meaning differently which shows another lack of understanding of what the sources say and mean. Articles are not for editors they are for ordinary people to read. It should be cleaned up or deleted. Mugginsx (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not really. In sacramental theology, ordinary means the minister who is ex officio empowered to dispense a sacrament. An extraordinary minister is one who has the power to do so only by special delegation. Therefore, a bishop is an ordinary minister of penance and anointing of the sick, for example, even if he be retired or sick or just too busy with his episcopal duties to perform many of these sacraments himself. Even though a priest is the usual minister of baptism, deacons and bishops are still ordinary ministers by virtue of their office. Elizium23 (talk) 13:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I see, but then do you consider the Bishop to be the usual administer of Baptism as it seems to indicate in the table where it states first a Bishop and then a priest?? Wouldn't it be more correct to state Priest or priest of higher rank then show by an asterisk to perhaps an Alpha Note meaning a priest, monsignor, bishop archbishop Cardinal or Pope?  To state Bishop or Priest to me sounds confusing and misleading, as if Bishops are going around baptising people as a matter of course.  Yes, it is technically, if not partially correct, as they can baptize, but so can any priest or even a lay person if there were a danger of death. Mugginsx (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned, it is perhaps clearer if we avoid mentioning clerics of higher rank in the table and instead preface it with a note that bishops are effectively priests and deacons, and priests are effectively deacons, because of the way Holy Orders works. Then the table becomes less confusing. The table becomes more confusing if we start talking about ecclesiastical honors that are not part of Holy Orders, such as monsignor and cardinal. Leave those out entirely. This article is about sacraments, not Church office. Elizium23 (talk) 14:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand why you would think it confusing, and I defer to you in that, but then why does it still have in the table for Baptism and Penance  - Bishop or priest?  That is also confusing, is it not?  Should the Bishop not be taken out, just leaving the priest as he is afterall the prime administer of those two sacraments under normal circumstances.  That is what annoys me the most - the Bishop or priest in the table under Baptism and Penance. I would think that a non-Catholic looking at it would think that ONLY a Bishop or priest can administer and that a Bishop normally hears confessions, which of course, he does not in most parish Churches. Mugginsx (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Think about it. Bishops and priests have all first been ordained to the diaconate before being ordained to a higher order.  Would you seriously for that reason replace "bishop, priest, or deacon" with the one word "deacon"?  When reporting what the Church teaches, why not be content with what the Church actually says?  What the Church says is: "The ordinary minister of baptism is a bishop, a priest or a deacon" (see here).  Why should we "correct" the Church?
 * In this context, an "extraordinary minister" is one who may act only in exceptional circumstances, when there is a lack of "ordinary ministers". Bishops, priests and deacons may baptize even if there are other bishops, priests or deacons available.  But if a bishop, a priest or a deacon is available, a catechist or other layperson who has been officially authorized to baptize (an extraordinary minister of baptism) should not baptize.  In the same way, if there are enough bishops, priests or deacons available, "extraordinary ministers of holy communion" should not distribute holy communion, and it is an abuse when they do.  That should be clear.  Esoglou (talk) 15:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Please re-read what I stated. You misunderstand my last response to Elizium23.  I am saying that the table is misleading in that the USUAL person to administer Baptism and Penance is a priest not a Bishop.  It is where it states Bishop or priest that I find it misleading in that priest should be there.  If you want to include Bishop or any other higher ranking priest in these two sacraments you should include either all with an alpha note, or leave out Bishop.  I say respectfully that you do not understand what you are reading.  I tried to draw comparisons, I will try another.


 * It is like having an article about police forces and one column is headed: Who can Arrest?   You would normally have there a police officer - NOT a Major on the police force and then a policeman after that.   Yes, they can BOTH arrest someone but normally a Major (on a large Metropolitan police force) is a police orfficer with mainly administrative duties so he is not the one out in the field arresting people. There is also a little used provision of a Citizen's arrest in emergency circumstances.  What should be there is police officer (which encompasses ALL police officers but using the title of the lower ranking men in the field who accounts for the vast majority of arrests. I hope I have made my viewpoint clear.  Again, You are reading but not understanding the sources. Mugginsx (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought you'd know that, for instance, when speaking of an army, it is (or was, when soldiers were all male) traditional to speak of "officers and men" (indeed also, "officers, non-commissioned officers and men") without implying that officers weren't men, though they weren't men in the sense of private soldiers. But that isn't really relevant.  I mention it only because of the still less relevant terminology used in whatever police force you are familiar with (and which uses "officers" even for members that have not attained a rank that in other police forces would be called that of officer).  What is relevant is the terminology that the Catholic Church itself uses.  You can't change that to suit your personal ideas of how the Church ought to use the term "ordinary minister".  You have no hope of making the Church rewrite all its documents that use that term, so as never to use it except with your meaning of "usual, most frequently occurring, minister", a meaning at present given to it in no document of the Catholic Church.  Esoglou (talk) 20:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The table of ministers is well constructed, but nowhere are the technical terms "ordinary minister" and "extraordinary minister" defined. As Mugginsx points out, "ordinary" in plain English means "usual" (it can also mean "common" or even "inferior," Merriam-Webster). So the whole point of the table will likely be lost on the average reader (even most Catholic readers). I propose that a section be added entitled "Ministers of the sacraments" with minimal text and a main article link to the Minister (Catholic Church) article. My initial thought is that the table of ordinary and extraordinary ministers would be better housed there.


 * I think Mugginsx's observation regarding who the usual minister of a given sacrament is also bears some consideration. Would a non-Catholic reader of the article benefit more from knowing who the usual minister is or who the ordinary/extraordinary minister is? Should both be represented? I'm not saying the "usual minister" information belongs in a table, but it is probably useful to mention somewhere that most of the sacraments are administered by a priest in a parish church, that a bishop alone administers Holy Orders and also usually confers Confirmation in the Churches of the Latin Rite, and that in the same the wedding promises are normally exchanged before a priest or less commonly a deacon. Echevalier (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have responded to your request for a clarification to be included in the article, I hope successfully. In view of the immensely greater number of priests (presbyters) than of bishops, it seems altogether unnecessary, not to say silly, to state something so obvious as that the sacraments open to both orders are administered more frequently by those in the lower and more numerous order.  Esoglou (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Your clarification on ordinary and extraordinary ministers is well done, although we should have a citation for the definitions (the Minister article gives a GIRM citation for "extraordinary minister," which at best supplies a part of the definition). I again propose that this information be merged with the Minister article. I do agree that the Minister article's mixing of validity/liciety and ordinary/extraordinary ministers in text and table is sloppy. The rest of the Minister article could use some help, too. (Interestingly, it mentions the eight-dicastery instruction and then proceeds to ignore it when discussing the definitions of ministry in the remainder of the article, and I have no idea where the "Ecclesial ministers" section is coming from.)


 * To your second point, I'm not sure that a Buddhist or Hindu reading this article will know that priests vastly outnumber bishops or that the parish community and parish church are the usual context for the celebration of most of the sacraments, and for Mormons and some Protestants, "bishop" is the person leading the neighborhood church. Echevalier (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Why sections on the individual sacraments here?
The article has a section for each of the seven sacraments, some of which are rather lengthy (Penance is five paragraphs long). Each also has a "main article" link to an article on that Catholic sacrament or the Catholic section of an article on that sacrament. In many cases, the content here has little in common with the content in those larger articles.

I propose that we leave the larger articles to explain the individual sacraments. This article should focus on general principles of the Catholic sacraments.

The article is also very heavy on liturgical and canon law and could be broadened significantly. For example, the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Sacraments covers a much wider gamut. Echevalier (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The portions of the article describing the Sacraments are totally unnecessary and, at best, repetitive and at worse, misleading, and not readable for the average person. There are articles on each and every Sacrament - we do not need another, especially this one. Mugginsx (talk) 21:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Article is beyond WP:Article Scope and does not use language for the average reader Manual of Style.
This article should follow its title in defining the Historic origin and general principles of the Sacraments - not detailing the Sacraments themselves. There are already individual articles on all of the Sacraments. This article is repetitious, and is not written according to the Manual of Style. It it uses terms and ecclesiastical language which are more appropriate for a Seminarian or religious journal and are totally unfamiliar to the average reader. The table is also totally confusing and much of the article violates WP:Article Scope. Mugginsx (talk) 21:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

More confusion in the Sacraments

 * Esoglou, it is clear that you make a valiant effort to read about the Roman Catholic Church, but you do not always understand what you are reading. You effort is a good faith effort, but the differences of the Eastern and Western Rite of the Churches are too numerous to attempt in a simple chart.  The chart is still hopelessly misleading in that it does not portray the way most Churches normally operate.  You still have Bishop first in two Sacraments which overwhelmingly do not use Bishops as the ordinary course of affairs.


 * In addition, in the text it was stated: the Church affirms that, for believers as a whole, the sacraments are necessary for salvation, This statement needed clarification as it is misleading in that it assumes that everyone can and must receive every Sacrament for Salvation. A child who dies has obviously not received all of the Sacramanets. Depending upon his age, he may not have received Sacraments of Confirmation, and doubtlessly has not received the Sacrament of Matrimony or Holy Orders. The statement would implied they cannot receive Salvation.  That is not true.  A man or woman may choose never to marry.  They can still go to heaven.  The fact is that not every person MUST or even CAN receive every Sacrmanet. For instance, a woman cannot receive the RC Sacrament of Holy Orders, since only men can become priests.  Also, once a man has received Holy Orders he cannot then receive the Sacrament of Matrimony for the reasons that RC priests are priests forever and cannot marry.


 * The overall problems are threefold: One is that many of the sources that are used in this article are in Ecclesiastical language, meant for theological scholars, and are misunderstood and taken out of context when re-phrased for Wikipedia.  It is inevitable that they are confusing as they were not meant for the average person to read.  The second problem is the failed attempt to put too much information into a simple table.  The third is that much of the information is beyond Scope. Mugginsx (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1129), long cited in the article. If you disagree have it out with the Church, not with me.  Esoglou (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have undid you restoration - if the Eastern Church believes this doctrine, then it it should be put in the TABLE but not in the generalized paragraph where the article talks about BOTH Churches. If you would only read my explanation, and that of the other editor you will see it is STILL untrue in the RC faith. You are making statements about both the RC Churches and the Eastern Rite churches as if they have interchangable Doctrine - THEY DO NOT.  Please check the title of your sources and their origin and you will see the mistakes as to what Rite of what church you are talking about. Here is just one of many examples.  http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0246.html Also check to see that you are not mixing two sources:  Code of Canon Law, canon 1057 §1 http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P3U.HTM  and  Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 828 http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19901018_codex-can-eccl-orient-2_lt.html . This source is INCORRECT - You states it is of the Eastern church 35.^ Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 828  36.^ Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 832  but the Eastern Church does not acknowledge the Roman Catholic Pope so it is incorrectly referenced and incorrectly used in the article.  Also it is in Latin.  I suspect this is where some of the problems may be arising.  The titles in the references, in fact, both refer to the Roman Catholic Church. I suspect you are mixing yourself up in your research which is understandable as they are both called Catholic.Mugginsx (talk) 17:22, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I have stated nothing: I have only restored the well-sourced text, "the Church affirms that, for believers as a whole, the sacraments are necessary for salvation", in place of your "The Church affirms that, for believers as a whole, that certain sacraments are necessary for salvation." (Where did you get that "certain"?)  I have introduced no new citation: the source already in the article is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which is a reliable source for the teaching of the Catholic Church, and the article is about the sacraments of the Catholic Church.  Also, if you don't know what the Eastern Catholic Churches are, just read the article and learn.  And if you imagine that the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches is legislation of the Eastern Orthodox Church and not of the Catholic Church, just read that article too and learn.  Esoglou (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Esgolu, there are TWO CATHOLIC CHURCHES HERE. Can you not understand that?  Did you not read what I carefully explained to you, along with the other editor.  Did you not notice that you used two citations and titled them EASTERN ORTHODOX CHURCH when they are in fact ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH?  Why do you not understand they are two very DIFFERENT churches?  You cannot make generalizations about them as if they are the same.   Please, look at the comments, they are not intended to offend you, just instruct you.  You are mixing your references and your statements in this article. References 34 is on the Roman Catholic side but the citation states Canon of Eastern Orthodox - that must be corrected.  In fact the article is named incorrectly, it should be either Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church or Roman Catholic Church and all the rest removed.  Since there is already an article for the Eastern Orthodox Church I suggest removing the rest.Mugginsx (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * There is only one Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church; within it there are 23 autonomous particular Churches, and a much greater number of non-autonomous local particular Churches. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, whose statement (reference 2, originally, but now reference 6) you are rejecting by your insistent edit, gives the teaching of the one Catholic Church and of all its particular Churches.  The Eastern Orthodox Church is not part of the Catholic Church and is not one of the Eastern Catholic Churches.  The "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church" of which you speak is only a product of your mistaken imagination.  If you refuse to learn this by simply reading the articles I have linked to, I must now leave you in your ignorance.  Esoglou (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You should become aware also that, if you deny that the sacraments of the New Testament are necessary for salvation, you as a Catholic fall under the anathema of the Council of Trent, quoted in reference 7 of the article. Esoglou (talk) 07:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT:::::::Well, I have been threatened to be blocked on Wikipedia but not to be damned to Hell. This is a first. At least you fixed you questionable references to say the correct Church on them. As to them containing what you state - since they are all in Latin, who knows? As to the name of the Church, please look at the top of the Wikipedia article Eastern Orthodox Church The first sentence in the lead which states: The Eastern Orthodox Church, officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church [note 1] and commonly referred to as the Orthodox Church...   then look at the numerous references given which are NOT in Latin. Mugginsx (talk) 09:53, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you cannot distinguish English from Latin, that also is something I can do nothing about. None of the sources that I quoted and that you have insistently deleted is in Latin! :-)  Esoglou (talk) 09:49, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Two similar but different Religions

 * Please read the edit above again - apparently we were editing at the same time. There are many titles to the Eastern Orthodox Church. One is Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church.  Similar in custom but not the same as the Roman Catholic Church.  The Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church does not recognize the Pope as the Leader of their Church.  See the article I referenced above and here. It states:  The Pope of Rome would still have honorary primacy before Constantinople if the East-West Schism had not occurred. Because of that schism the Orthodox no longer recognize the legitimacy of the pope. The Patriarch therefore, like the Pope before him now enjoys the title of “first among equals”. This is not, however, meant to imply that he is the leader of the Orthodox Church. Also, this is not an official title of any sort, just a way of describing the seniority of the "imperial" bishops with respect to all other bishops.  Also look at their official website, http://www.easterncatholicchurch.org/ and here: http://rbsocc.org/history.html You see no mention of the Pope there.  The Pope is not, to them, as it is to Roman Catholics the representative of Christ on earth, not Infallible in matters of faith and doctrine. I repeat, a very similar but different religion.  Also see here: Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion Published by: Wiley-Blackwell on behalf of Society for the Scientific Study of Religion Vol. 49, No. 1, MARCH 2010 which states: The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches share a similar theology and a hierarchical church administration. Local parish communities are organized in similar ways. However, the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian churches occupy different places in the context of American culture, and they have developed distinct notions of priesthood.


 * Also, I did not remove the Latin reference but please note that we do not normally use references in different languages even if there can be put through the Google translator. We are en-Wikipedia. And yes, I know a bit of Latin but not enough to read an long and improper Wikipedia reference. I did not delete any latin source - it is still there for all to see. Beacuse the Eastern church also has (Catholic) in its title does NOT make it the same as the Roman Catholic Church.  The fundamental difference is as stated above. To be more specific:  They do NOT recognize the Pope as the Vicar of the church and as Infallible when speaking of faith or doctrine.  Research, if you will the Infallibility Doctrine.   The Eastern Orthodox Church or Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church as sometimes called, regarded the Pope as "first among equals"  equal to any other bishop. That is the cause of the Schism and the reason that, although they are a very similar religions they are nonetheless different religions.  I have other work to do, and I do not wish to be possibily damned to hell again, especially by someone who is not even of my religion.

Changing the title of the article
This article is incorrectly titled. It should be titled: Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. If someone wishes to write another article on the Sacraments of the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Religion that is fine but these are two similar but different religions and are incompatible in the same article.

Agree to change article title to Sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church. Mugginsx (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand it
Hi, Not being a Catholic, I came to this page to understand what the sacraments are. Instead I am met with a variety of "religious speak" which doesn't tell me anything. Please fix this.

103.21.173.129 (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Indicating concretely what the seven sacraments of the Catholic Church are will perhaps overcome this difficulty. Esoglou (talk) 07:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Change title to Sacraments (Catholic Church)
I move that we change the title of this article to Sacraments (Catholic Church). This title with parenthetical "Catholic Church" is in line with the naming convention for Catholic sacrament articles, and other religion sacrament articles, and is shorter as well. This action will need to be performed by an administrator, as there is already a Sacraments (Catholic Church) page with an edit history. Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 02:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ordination of Kings?
What is the Ordination of Kings? Coronation? Elizium23 (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * A consecration, rather than a coronation. 2A01:E0A:209:DC30:77E8:9B53:146F:20D1 (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

...power to celebrate the sacraments, except for...
Okay, so technically, in the Latin Church, the priest doesn't actually "celebrate" the sacrament of Matrimony but he witnesses it. The husband and the wife are the ministers of the sacrament. I don't think we need to muddy the waters with that technical distinction in that particular sentence. Elizium23 (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

"Sacraments " listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sacraments_&redirect=no Sacraments ] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 23:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

"Sacraments of the Living" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sacraments_of_the_Living&redirect=no Sacraments of the Living] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. Veverve (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)