"Sacraments" are defined as outward signs instituted by Christ to give grace. The Catholic Church has always believed in seven Sacraments, though during the Protestant Reformation, the reformers originally differed among themselves with regard to the number of Sacraments. If this Reformation were truly from God, why would there be disagreements on the number Sacraments from the start? In any case, after the Reformation most reformed churches discarded five of the seven Sacraments, despite the fact that the early Church Fathers continually refer to seven Sacraments. The Council of Trent also reconfirmed seven. Below we quickly review the seven Sacraments, and their sources in Scripture. On what grounds and on what authority were the five removed by the reformers?



Sacraments in General



While the Catholic Church has always held to the consecratory words of each Sacrament, the Protestant reformers have written that these consecrating words are charms, and that the true form of the Sacraments is preaching. We ask the Protestant reformers where their Scriptural support is for such a reformation? Verses such as "That he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of water in the word of life" Ephesians 5:26 and "Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" Matthew 28:19 each clearly prove that preaching is not the true form of the Sacraments. And also the verses "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved" Matthew 16:16 and "For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel" 1 Corinthians 1:17 clearly show preaching and the Sacrament of Baptism are two different things, so why do some of the Protestant reformers combine them?

The Protestant reformers have also claimed that providing the exterior action of Baptism or the Eucharist, even with no intention or even joking, the Sacrament still occurs and is valid. Again we have nothing in Scripture to vouch for such a belief and this belief has been condemned by multiple Councils such as that of Florence and Trent. In summary, if a man were talking in his sleep or drunk and said the words of a Sacrament, the meaning and intention are not there, and no Sacrament has been administered, just as all that a judge says does not become law just because it came from his mouth, he has to make the intention of making it law.



Sacrament of Baptism



Consider the verse, "But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Acts 2:38. Though most Protestants claim to believe in the Sacrament of Baptism, many disagree on the details of the Sacrament. In the above verse, we clearly see our sins are forgiven at time of the Sacrament of Baptism, and that we receive the Holy Ghost through the Sacrament.

In addition the Protestant reformers violate the Councils, the Popes and the early Church Fathers regarding this Sacrament who all believed in Baptism of children. By what authority did the Protestant reformers change this doctrine?



Sacrament of Penance



In many verses in the New Testament, we see Our Lord forgiving sins such as, "And he said to her: Thy sins are forgiven thee." Luke 7:48 and "Son, thy sins are forgiven thee." Mark 2:5.

Now consider the verses, "He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." John 20:21-23. Here Our Lord clearly says he is sending the Apostles and giving them the same right to forgive sins all in the same phrase. For what reasons should the Apostles be sent to forgive or retain sin if there is no need for us to confess?

Consider the verses, "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity." 1 John 1:8-9. This clearly states we should confess our sins.

Of what purpose are all the references in Scripture to confession of sins, forgiveness of sins, remission of sins, repentance of sins, doing penance, and "blotting out" sin if they are of no concern to our salvation, and if we are not to worry about cleansing ourselves of them?

Early writings of the church are filled with references to the Sacrament of Penance. By what authority did the Protestant reformers change this doctrine which had always been believed to be a Sacrament before the Reformation?



Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist (Real Presence)



Regarding the Holy Eucharist, consider these verses and comments that follow:



"And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body" Matthew 26:26. Here Jesus clearly states that the bread IS His body, not a symbol of it. Nothing symbolic is spoken of here.



"And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me" Luke 22:19. Here Jesus tells us to perform this same process as He.



"If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give, is my flesh, for the life of the world" John 6:52. Here Jesus very clearly states that the bread IS His flesh, He does not say it is a symbol of it. Yes, this is a mystery and difficult to understand, we agree, but we must believe in the words of Our Lord. And if Our Lord was referring to a symbol only, why would this symbolic-only bread have any special characteristics such as allowing us to "live forever"?



"The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? And the bread, which we break, is it not the partaking of the body of the Lord?" 1 Corinthians 10:16. This clearly shows the Apostles belief in the bread and body of Our Lord being the same. So why do the Protestant reformers choose to oppose the Apostles regarding this?



"And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body." Mark 14:22. This says the same as above.



"I am the bread of life" John 6:48. This says the same as above.



"This is the bread which cometh down from heaven; that if any man eat of it, he may not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven" John 6:50-51. Here Jesus says HE is the bread, and the bread comes down from heaven (which makes it much more than symbolic), and says anyone who eats it will not die (spiritually that is).



"Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day." John 6:54-55. Here Our Lord repeats the same as above. How else can this be interpreted?



"For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him" John 6:56-57. Again we have an unmistakable equation of Our Lord's flesh and bread, and Our Lord's blood and the wine. Combine this with the meanings of the verses above, and we clearly have something extremely special, something infinitely more special than something only symbolic.



"After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him." John 6:67. Clearly some assumed Our Lord was referring to cannibalism here. Had Our Lord been referring to a symbolic relation between bread and body, and blood and wine, He certainly would have clarified that he was referring to a symbolic representation when the others tried to leave, but He did not. Elsewhere in Scripture Our Lord was always certain to clarify His meaning on key doctrines when he sensed others were confused. How much more would Our Lord have gone out of His way to clarify in this situation upon seeing some of His disciples leaving to follow him no more? Rather, Our Lord clearly meant what He said and did not need to clarify; He mentioned we would be eating His body and drinking His blood (obviously spiritually present after being properly consecrated). Yes, this is a mystery and hard to understand, but this is the only logical meaning behind Our Lord's words, so we must accept them.



The verses above are the words of Our Lord, and the Catholic Church did not create them or their meaning. The words are what they are and the Protestant reformers had no right to oppose all antiquity and create the "symbolic" belief for the Eucharist, when this is clearly not stated in Scripture. The belief in the real presence in the Holy Eucharist was universal among Christians up until the Protestant reformation, so again this is an example of new doctrine started by the Protestant reformers.

Let us also consider these verses, "For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come. Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord. But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord." 1 Corinthians 11:26-29. Here we ask Protestants who believe the bread and wine only to be symbols of Our Lord's body and blood, for what purpose does Our Lord say "For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord" if these are only symbols? How does one eat a symbol "unworthily"? And does it make sense that we would bring judgment on ourselves by eating and drinking only a symbol?

Some Protestants choose not to believe in the real presence since this doctrine "sounds silly" or because they cannot comprehend it. Is the doctrine of the real presence a mystery? Absolutely! And if it is a mystery, we surely cannot fully comprehend it, rather we believe it because Our Lord told us it was so. We cannot choose not to believe a doctrine Our Lord teaches us simply because we cannot fully comprehend it. There are other doctrines we cannot fully understand either such as God's omnipresence. Do we not believe this because we cannot fully comprehend it? Of course not. We cannot expect to fully understand the actions or doctrines of an all-powerful God, and our limited understanding of them does not limit what God can do.

If we look at ancient writings from the Christian Church we also see repeated mention of the real presence in the Eucharist going back to the earliest centuries of the Church. Many writings from prominent members of the Church which teach of the real presence include writings of St. Cyprian in the 3rd century, St. Cyril of Jerusalem in the 4th century, St. Ambrose in the 4th century, St. John Damascene in the 8th century, and St. Paschasius in the 9th century just to give a few examples. And during those early centuries we do not see anyone contesting this belief so it remains clear that the early Christian Church openly believed in the real presence in the Eucharist. If the early Church believed in the real presence, on what grounds did the Protestant reformers discard this belief?