On Donatism - Or Are Other Sacraments Valid?

 I was chatting on Facebook the other day in one of the plethora of Orthodox groups that I am in. A person asked for patristic quotes that the sacraments outside of the Church were not valid. I pulled some quick quotes from my favorite Early Church Father, St. Ignatius, and expected a priest to maybe weigh in if I were reading things wrong.

Well, it wasn't a priest that weighed in, but another layman. He told me to be careful, because what I posted was awfully close to Donatism.

 

Now, before this, I was only vaguely familiar with Donatism. I knew that it had something to do with sacraments and repabtizing lapsed Christians. So, I did what I do best and consulted Wikipedia. I did not see how what I had posted was Donatism, but I could see where it could be misconstrued as such.

I laid out my points, and the "debate" ended in a surprising way. The commenter saw my side of my argument, and we didn't result to name calling or insults. That was rather refreshing!

Here is the original question (link at the end):

"Does anybody have any Patristic quotes/evidence that schismatics do not have valid sacraments?

"I know Catholics believe that schismatics can still have valid sacraments (albeit illicit) due to apostolic succession. But I was wondering if there are any Patristic quotes demonstrating the opposite. Thanks!" (Patristic Orthodoxy)

And here is my response:

"'See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is administered either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there, let the multitude of the people also be; even as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.' ((Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter .[sic that should be "8)" but internet formatting changed it to the cool guy emoji] St. Ignatius
 

'Those indeed, who belong to God and to Jesus Christ—they are with the bishop. And those who repent and come to the unity of the Church—they too shall be of God. . . . Do not err my brethren: if anyone follow a schismatic, he will not inherit the Kingdom of God. . . . Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of His Blood; one altar as there is one bishop with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons' (Letter to the Philadelphians, Chapter 3). St. Ignatius
 

'Indeed, when you submit to the bishop as you would to Jesus Christ, it is clear to me that you are living not in the manner of men but as Jesus Christ, who died for us, that through faith in his death you might escape dying. It is necessary, therefore—and such is your practice—that you do nothing without the bishop, and that you be subject also to the presbytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ our hope, in whom we shall be found, if we live in Him' (Letter to the Magnesians, Chapter 13). St. Ignatius

 
"Even if you (general you) have a bishop, if he isn't connected to the Church the he's not valid. Even if you have a priest, if he isn't connected to a bishop of the Church, then he's not valid."

 I hope that I made it clear which parts were quotes from St. Ignatius and which parts were mine. Also, instead of searching through the writings of St. Ignatius to get these quotes, I just did a Google search and grabbed so relevant quotes - the website happened to be Roman Catholic.

So, what is Donatism? Short version; a heresy.

Long version;

"Donatism was a Christian sect leading to a schism in the Church, in the region of the Church of Carthage, from the fourth to the sixth centuries. Donatists argued that Christian clergy must be faultless for their ministry to be effective and their prayers and sacraments to be valid. Donatism had its roots in the long-established Christian community of the Roman Africa province (present-day Tunisia, the northeast of Algeria, and the western coast of Libya) in the persecutions of Christians under Diocletian. Named after the Berber Christian bishop Donatus Magnus, Donatism flourished during the fourth and fifth centuries."(Wikipedia - Donatism)

Basically, what happened to ignite this heresy is that during the Diocletian persecutions many Christians betrayed the Christian faith to escape persecution. These were called traditores - people who handed over sacred items, and names of other Christians to the authorities. 

After the persecutions ended with St. Constantine in AD313, "the Church had to face reconciliation of those who had lapsed and wished to return to the Church, particularly among the clergy." (OrthodoxWiki - Donatism) And this is where the kerfuffle started.

The Church proper allowed these traditores to come fully come back in to the fold - and for clergy to be reinstated - after a period of penance. However, the Donatists said that these clergy did not have valid sacraments because they were traitors to the faith. They also said that lapsed Christians needed to be rebaptized, instead of just doing a penance. 

Now, this penance was more than just a person saying they were sorry and getting a metaphorical slap on the wrist. A penance could last for years and included the penitent to beg for prayers by passersby into the parish, kneeling inside during the Liturgy, standing with the other faithful during the Liturgy, and finally being able toe receive communion again.

And again, this penance could take years, or decades. The Church proper decided that this was the proper way to do things with lapsed Christians, even ones who had betrayed the faith and other Christians.

So, what I'm trying to say is that the Donatists said the sacraments of repentant clergy were not valid and the Church said, "you are wrong." The Church did not say that the sacraments of heterodox and heretical clergy were valid. The difference is that the heterodox and heretical clergy remain outside of the Church, while the repentant clergy were once again a part of the Church.

Also, if you have ever seen a lapsed Protestant rededicate their lives to Christ and get rebaptized, then you have witnessed heresy in action. The Church says there is only one baptism, and to rebaptize is heresy. The Church will still bring in lapsed Christians through confession and a penance to this day.

So, we've cleared up what Donatism is and isn't - at least at a middle to high school level. Let us now focus on if other faiths have legitimate sacraments.

My personal opinion is no - with some caveats. 

First of all, St. Ignatius says that those who follow schismatics will not inherit the Kingdom of God. He states there is one Eucharist, and the proper Eucharist is administered by a bishop, or one the bishop has entrusted to it. 

Schismatics do not preform the Eucharist with the permission of a bishop.

Some might want to respond with something about apostolic succession, but I maintain that while a church might be able to trace their bishops back to an Apostle, once they separated from the True Church and the True Faith they lost that succession. It has to be this way, lest we say that heretics still have apostolic succession and that their sacraments are still valid.

That might make some people mad, but it is my opinion and unless I am corrected by a priest or bishop I will maintain it as such.

And this is my opinion because if I were to go receive sacraments at another church, be it Roman Catholic, Baptist (even though they don't call them sacraments), Anglican, Methodist, Lutheran, or one of the other plethora of Protestant churches, then I would be excommunicated (and have to do penance). If I take communion at any other church, or if I get married at another church, then I am excommunicated. If those sacraments were valid then why would I be excommunicated?

Now, a caveat. There are instances where inter-communion might happen between Eastern Orthodox laity, and Coptic Orthodox laity, or Roman Catholic laity. As in the Middle East, where it might be hard for faithful of one church to be able to commune at a parish of their faith, so with the blessing of their bishop they go to a parish of another faith. 

How do I reconcile this with my stated opinion of no other churches having valid sacraments? The same way I reconcile that a baptism received at a Baptist church is made valid upon receiving Orthodox Chrism - through the grace of God for that specific circumstance. I believe that in that instance the other clergy is performing the sacrament of the Eucharist for that Orthodox faithful with the blessing of the Orthodox bishop - it might not be in writing, or explicitly stated - but the layperson has received a blessing from their bishop to receive communion at another faith's parish due to hardships, and therefore the presiding clergy is blessed to perform the Eucharist for that particular layperson (or laypeople as the case may be). I wanted to emphasize that last part. It is a very specific circumstance for a very specific person (or people). Outside of this specific circumstance I still maintain the sacraments of other faiths - be they Roman Catholic or Protestant - as invalid.

In conclusion, those outside of the Church do not have valid sacraments, and it is not Donatism to say so.

Also, a thank you to the commenter whose friendly discussion with me helped me think of something to blog about again. And another thanks for keeping the discussion friendly; unfortunately, too many debates and discussions devolve into insults and name calling these days, so it truly was refreshing to not have the conversation go that way.

Please pray for me, a sinner.