quote:

---

belief that the sacraments are inherently efficacious and necessary for salvation

---

• Extreme anti-sacramentalism is a denial of the God-bearing character of Creation because it fails to recognise how God can work through aspects of creation.
• Extreme sacramentalism is also a denial of the God-bearing character of Creation because it confines God to too limited range of vehicles of grace.

 

---

Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :
 
I would agree with the first half of canucklehead's quote from Websters. I believe that the sacraments are inherantly efficacious, but I can't see them as necessary to salvation. Salvation comes from faith in its fullest meaning of trust in God and His self-revelation to mankind in Jesus Christ.

But when Christ commanded His followers, "do this in memory of me" He made it efficacious for all future generations of followers who consecrate in His name. There may be people who by reason of geography or illness are unable to receive sacraments. They are no further from salvation for it, but to make our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to God, in memory of Christ's sacrifice for us, in which He is made present for us is a necessary part of the Christian life.
 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
As angloid was suggesting, people have too narrow a definition of sacramental, and hence have problems with necessity. Let's say that God can use anything in creation to communicate with us. We can use elements of creation to respond to God. At the point when God is using creation to communicate himself to us, and we are using the same to respond, that is a sacramental encounter. I think we would all agree that some kind of encounter with God is NECESSARY for salvation.

Anti-sacramentalism includes (but is not limited to) the suggestion that either God or us cannot use some element of creation for such an encounter OR the suggestion that such an encounter might involve something that doesn't exist.

Personally, the latter, while more subtle, is far more pernicious. Here's an example: THE Church, the imaginary united body of people who are not really united, DOES NOT EXIST. To say we can encounter God there denies the God-bearing character of church. Christian unity is very very important, but that is probably a tangent for another thread...
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
The little-c "catholic" or "universal" church, the little-c church of God, church of Christ, church of the Firstborn, church of the Messiah, THAT church... yes, that exists outside of congregational bodies and man-made allegiances to religious groups.

What would make you think it did not exist, or was 100% synonymous with whoever shows up in particular church buildings on Sunday morning?

Is a man righteous/saved/right with God/washed in the blood of the Lamb, whatever, as an individual, based upon his Abraham-like obedient faith in God? Or are people sanctified/saved in groups?

Jesus took common food items, special since they were part of a Passover celebration, but common food nonetheless, to initiate the Communion. Peter said baptism saves because of the pledge of a good conscience. Few particular words or ceremonial actions used in a modern-day Western wedding come from Scripture. As for burial - what I see concerning particular actions at funeral time in the New Testament still had to do with Jewish culture, & I'm not Jewish.

What other things are considered sacraments? What things, found in the history of the first Christians, which we see in the Bible?
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Ley Druid has my vote. I was talking about sacramentalISM, not sacraments per se in the technical and specific sense. Anti-sacramentalism denies that materiality can be a vehicle of divine encounter and grace, (the burning bush might be a good example of the contrary argument). Anti-sacramentalism has no room for a doctrine of creation within the salvation schema. We are paying for that narrowness today with our privatised world-injurious rapaciousness.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
But the whole of creation is contained in God, is constantly being made live and sustained by God.

And God is in the whole of creation, because it could not exist or survive otherwise.

So the whole of creation is a sacrament.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
'The whole of creation is a sacrament': way to go, Daisymay!

BTW, if you do not look exactly like your avatar in real life, I shall be really disappointed.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
I was under the impression that you were offering a proposition, not a definition.

quote:

---

Anti-sacramentalism has no room for a doctrine of creation within the salvation schema. We are paying for that narrowness today with our privatised world-injurious rapaciousness.

---

quote:

---

THE Church, the imaginary united body of people who are not really united, DOES NOT EXIST.

---

quote:

---

What would make you think it did not exist?

---

quote:

---

There is, then, the visible, local Church, and the invisible, universal Church. In the latter case the word represents a conception of the mind, having no real existence in time or place, and not a historical fact, being only an ideal multitude without organization, without action, and without corporate being.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
I suggested

quote:

---

THE Church, the imaginary united body of people who are not really united, DOES NOT EXIST.

---

and Janine asked

quote:

---

What would make you think it did not exist?

---

Because it is "imaginary". Do "imaginary" things exist for you? If you think this is an unfair definition of "THE Church" or that nobody else advances it, Check out Baptist Dr. Edward T. Hiscox, in his A New Directory for Baptist Churches where he says

quote:

---

There is, then, the visible, local Church, and the invisible, universal Church. In the latter case the word represents a conception of the mind, having no real existence in time or place, and not a historical fact, being only an ideal multitude without organization, without action, and without corporate being.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Scot

Certain Christian traditions (let the reader understand) are uncomfortable with the idea that material things, (bread, wine, oil, water, flesh, matter etc. etc.), can be vehicles of the presence of God.

According to this understanding (anti-sacramentalism) God is only present APART from the material realm. In consequence the doctrines of creation and salvation are separated. By so doing only humans can be saved and transformed. Creation can "go hang" and we can pollute it, abuse it and manipulate it to our own selfish ends with impunity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Scot

Certain Christian traditions (let the reader understand) are uncomfortable with the idea that material things, (bread, wine, oil, water, flesh, matter etc. etc.), can be vehicles of the presence of God.

---

That's a caricature at best of a healthy protestant viewpoint, which instead believes that the sacramental material things are no more able to be vehicles of God's presence than anything else. It's a very fine distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.
 

---

Posted by Jengie (# 273) on :
 
Fr Gregory

You do not know where I stand. You associate intimacy only with touch. That says something of your ease with touch for which you should thank the Lord. For those to whom it is denied you should not be so quick to condemn. We have not all had your fortunate experience. Intimate touch for me has been profaned in ways you do not know for I have not told you. I therefore find you judgementalism hard to take. I value intimacy very highly but I can not follow your pattern.

Intimacy for me is expressed in the getting the gift right, in a listening/observing that is very very deep. It is about being able to understand what someone is thinking and respond in a way that is affirming of them. Like a blind people who develop very skilled hearing I am at times uncanny at this, or so my friends tell me. Perhaps I should say I have enjoyed the ease of personal reading in the company of friends.

I will also say though I can not at present concieve of being anything but celibate I did not choose celibacy. I therefore do not see myself as being specially holy by that it is just the way I am. Just as you seem to be a happily married man. It may be beyond your comprehension but I do not struggle to be celibate, I would struggle to cope with anything else. Thus before I do that I want to know the person well.

You see for me touch is not silent but usually a babel of emotional noise. With most people I have not reached the level of intimacy where I can trust there touch intention so they set off the babel of voices which I find distressing.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Janine (# 3337) on :
 
The only way I'm going to see God (until I die and see Him face-to-face) is in material things and human organization. I can dedude His existence & power from experiencing the Creation (see Romans Chapter 1, for example).

But I cannot SEE God right now. Therefore, He is imaginary. Yes?
 

---

Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
As an evangelical, I can say Fr. Gregory has it right on the tendancy of some evangelicals to not give a darn about the environment.

However, much of evangelicalism celebrates creation. The hymns of much of evangelicalism are laced with discussions of creation worshiping God; the walls of nurseries are filled with pictures of cute bunnies. Harvest services abound. But, if your mutual fund can make some money on it, then the love of creation often get conveniently forgotten.

I see this lack of concern for God's creation more as an incomplete and chequered understanding of the role of theology in life then a systemic theology.


 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Jengie

Of course I respect your own personal position and experience but we can no more build a coherent eucharistic theology out of that than you could out of mine. I was merely saying that contact with God cannot merely be intentional it must be expressed and for embodied beings that must involve the material realm. Human intimacy was an analogy I was making. I had absolutely no knowledge of your own situation nor was I referring to it.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Certain Christian traditions (let the reader understand) are uncomfortable with the idea that material things, (bread, wine, oil, water, flesh, matter etc. etc.), can be vehicles of the presence of God.

According to this understanding (anti-sacramentalism) God is only present APART from the material realm. In consequence the doctrines of creation and salvation are separated. By so doing only humans can be saved and transformed. Creation can "go hang" and we can pollute it, abuse it and manipulate it to our own selfish ends with impunity.

---

quote:

---

ask again, which Christian traditions hold that God is only present apart from the material realm?

---

quote:

---

Every external worship ritual silences our spirit seeking Christ the Spirit.

---

• Spirit Christology - where Jesus differs from us only in a unique indwelling of the Holy Spirit - this seems to me a distorted view of the Incarnation.
• Views of the Resurrection, normally which "go along with" spirit Christology, wherein the physical resurrection is denied or minimised - perhaps reduced to the disciples' experience of forgiveness.
• Attitudes, such as John Calvin could express, of wanting to deny any physical presence in the Eucharist. (I do not mean that transubstantiation needs to be the definition!) It seems understandable from one who described a baby in its mother's womb as one trapped with filth and excrement.
• A relation of original sin (Augustinian definition) to the Incarnation where the latter is prompted by the sin, not a part of creation, and we are thought of more as being saved from hell than as being granted deification.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
You

quote:

---

ask again, which Christian traditions hold that God is only present apart from the material realm?

---

We'll this sounds pretty close:

quote:

---

Every external worship ritual silences our spirit seeking Christ the Spirit.

---

From Worship God in the spirit
Feel free to tell me that this is not "a Christian tradition", but it does seem much more prevalent in the protestant West than the Orhtodox East.

---

quote:

---

a healthy protestant viewpoint, which instead believes that the sacramental material things are no more able to be vehicles of God's presence than anything else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Then why do they seem to break fellowship with each other so frequently?

---

Because they are imperfect humans, just like the Orthodox and Roman Catholics.
 

---

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
I cannot recall who mentioned sexuality on this thread (pardon me, I'm sleepy.) However, in Gnosticism, or any other heresy (down well through the Middle Ages), it seems that those who believed the material world was evil, or totally divorced it from God, fell into dualism and more often were libertine than ascetic. I know that was not the precise OP, but I feel much the same as Fr Gregory about anti-sacramentalism.

The questions I posted earlier were not challenges - they are areas I truly do wish to explore.
 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
My question is, is the divisiveness in protestantism due to an imperfect ecclesiology or to an inability of imperfect people to practice a perfect ecclesiology? In either case doesn't this call for a re-evaluation of the ecclesiology? The Orthodox and Catholic churches have imperfections and imperfect members but they don't seem as fissiparous.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
So then, it is simply a matter of degree? That seems a slim basis for pointing fingers.
 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
My question is, is the increased divisiveness in non-Orthodox and non-Catholic churches due to an imperfect ecclesiology or to an inability of imperfect people to practice a perfect ecclesiology? In either case doesn't this call for a re-evaluation of the ecclesiology? The Orthodox and Catholic churches have imperfections and imperfect members but they don't seem as fissiparous.
 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
Sorry I asked that last question. Forget it. Scratch. Good-bye. God Bless.
 

---

Posted by The Coot (# 220) on :
 
I can't understand why Fr G. is being accused of being anti-West in this thread. The Catholic and Anglican Churches are both sacramental. Sacramentalism and Non-Sacramentalism is not a convenient East-West divide.

[Edit: Lutherans also are sacramental. It's about time someone called Mrs W. out of hiding ]

[ 28. September 2002, 06:16: Message edited by: The Coot ]
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Coot

I was not claiming that anti-sacramentalism was the defining feature of ALL western traditions; far from it. I was saying that it was a persistent weakness amongst those traditions that have inherited a certain "western" ecclesiology / sacramental theology. There is NO coreesponding tradition(s) in the east, Chalcedonian or even non-Chalcedonian which is anti-sacramental in approach.

Let's take the Quaker teaching that everything is sacramental as an example. This would be fine if it were exemplified in particular examples that focused such sacramentality ... baptism, eucharist etc. Otherwise it would be like saying "love is all there is" without actually loving SOMEONE in particular. The resistance in SOME traditions to particularity often goes hand in hand with a denial of the incarnation; the so called scandal of particularity.

Amongst those Reformed traditions that take the material realm to furnish sacramental symbols rather than vehicles of God's Presence (both human and non-human) in the manner of Zwingli the creation can never be a place of theophany. How on earth (literally) this can be squared with the theophanies of both Old and New Testaments beats me. That's what I am getting at.
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
Ley Druid, I might be wrong (and Wood will correct me if I am) but I think that Wood meant was that all material things are equally able to be vehicles of God's presence. The "anything else" refers to trees, rocks, unconsecrated wine and bread, you, and me.

You ask (rhetorically) why go to a real church, with real people, and do real things when "anything else" will be just as just as good a vehicle of God's presence? Simple. To eschew the church is to deny the God-bearing nature of other Christians. Any healthy Protestant understands the need for fellowship.

scot

---

quote:

---

Once more I recall his teaching of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. He held the full Catholic doctrine - Real Presence, Sacrifice, Communion. We take the Bread (so he taught us) and offer it, bless it, break it, that it may be to us the very Body of Love. But while most Catholic doctrine lays all its stress on what the Bread becomes to us, he laid equal stress on what it is to begin with, which enables it to become that other and greater thing.

Bread is the common food of humanity; but it is first the fruit of human labour upon God's gift. God gave the soil, and the properties of the seed, and the sun and the rain. Man ploughed the land and sowed the seed and reaped the harvest and ground the corn and baked the flour. Often too, for us at least, bread reaches us by the labour of shipbuilders, seamen, merchants. We purchase it by our products of coal and iron and all manner of other things sent to the great corn-growing countries.

Thus bread is not a mere symbol of the labour of mankind; it is itself that labour materialised in its product. What we lay on the altar, asking God to accept our oblations, is the toil whereby humankind wins its life from day to day.

...

So the Eucharist if the focus, the gathering into a single spiritual act, of all the meaning of human life.

---

As I see it, the Sacraments provide this focus, enabling us to see the whole of life as sacramental. If we are anti-sacramentalists, we lack that affirming focus, and it becomes easy to lapse into body / spirit dualisms.
 

---

Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on :
 
Doble post - bad form. I hope I'll be forgiven. This one is shorter..

G. K. Cheserton said something like:

"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing. They believe in anything".

In a similar vein, perhaps we might say:

"When Christians stop believing in the holiness of the Sacrament, they don't believe that everything is holy. They believe that nothing is."
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
ptarmigan, that prompted this thought in my mind. There is a tendancy in some parts of the church towards non-sacramentalism (ie: putting less emphasis on Communion or Baptism than others, or indeed no emphasis at all). There are very few, if any (I've never met any), who are anti-sacramentalists (ie: denying any possibility of God acting through material means). Maybe my definitions of non- and anti- need tidying up, but there clearly is a spectrum of attitudes to sacraments.
 

---

Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on :
 
The only denomination I know of which doesn't celebrate the Eucharist at all is the Salvation Army, for whom I have great respect and affection. And I would argue that in their practice of Breaking Bread and Soup with the poor and homeless, following the example of Christ, they broaden our perspective of what the Eucharist should be.

I wouldn't dream of speculating whether or not Salvationists have a sacramental view of life generally.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Ptarmigan

What can I say?! Anen. Amen.
Amen.
 

---

Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on :
 
Thank you Father Gregory.
 

---

Posted by troy (# 2516) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
My question is, is the divisiveness in protestantism due to an imperfect ecclesiology or to an inability of imperfect people to practice a perfect ecclesiology?

---

quote:

---

all material things are equally able to be vehicles of God's presence

---

I think the suggestion that the Reformers thought that holy water and icons were "equally able to be vehicles of God's presence" as "anything else", or that this tends to be the attitude of most churches not in communion with Rome or Constantinople today is an historical fiction. Calvin would be one example.

I am not saying that all protestants are anti-sacramental, but where are the long lines of protestants that would suggest that the pope or the Patriarch of Constantinople are "equally able to be vehicles of God's presence" as a bible? All three are material things.

In fact, is it not more typical protestant to assert supremacy of The Bible (notice again reference to something whose physical nature and location are difficult to provide and whose existence is in fact the matter of debate)

And can this supremacy not be used to stand in the face of all creation and say "I believe the Bible allows me to "subdue the earth"?
 

---

Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
I think this is why environmentalists are seen as enemies by right-wing Christians. Rather than seeing the situation as we being the stewards for God's lands, they see us as having this place for our playground, to do with as we please. Subdue it, indeed!
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
Ley Druid, is there any evidence that non-Protestant Christians have historically been less interested in subduing the earth than Protestants? Especially considering that earth-subduing pre-dates Protestantism, I would doubt it. And you'd be hard pressed to show that Catholics and Orthodox don't see God more in some aspects of creation than in others. Sure, Protestants prefer the Bible to the pope and to eastern patriarchs. Why shouldn't they? Why you find the Bible difficult to locate I don't know. And of course the Reformers had trouble seeing holy water and icons as vehicles of God's presence. The church that was selling them during the Reformers' time was in pretty bad shape.

Though I would certainly put myself on the sacramentalist end of the spectrum, I don't see any need to speak so disparagingly of other people's traditions. While Zwingli's approach certainly may lend itself to a poor view of God's good creation and to the needless and wrong idea of a mind/body division, sacramentalism is equally likely to lend itself to idolatry.

Fr. Gregory: Hmm, you're right. It has been that long. For how much of the intervening period were you absent from the boards? And in case you're wondering, no, I'm not going to let go of this. As long as you keep finding excuses to bag on the west, I will point it out.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
OK then Troy, whilst accepting that sections of denominations do get on wonderfully well along the aforesaid spectrum then why do they seem incapable of building that diversity into ONE Church? Isn't it because their mutual ecclesiologies are still invisible ... non-sacramental, (rather than anti-sacramental which is another thing)?

---

quote:

---

Fr. Gregory: Hmm, you're right. It has been that long. For how much of the intervening period were you absent from the boards? And in case you're wondering, no, I'm not going to let go of this. As long as you keep finding excuses to bag on the west, I will point it out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Isn't it because their mutual ecclesiologies are still invisible ... non-sacramental, (rather than anti-sacramental which is another thing)?

---

quote:

---

is there any evidence that non-Protestant Christians have historically been less interested in subduing the earth than Protestants?

---

quote:

---

you'd be hard pressed to show that Catholics and Orthodox don't see God more in some aspects of creation than in others

---

quote:

---

Sure, Protestants prefer the Bible to the pope and to eastern patriarchs. Why shouldn't they?

---

quote:

---

Why you find the Bible difficult to locate I don't know

---

quote:

---

I don't see any need to speak so disparagingly of other people's traditions

---

quote:

---

sacramentalism is equally likely to lend itself to idolatry

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:
RuthW,

do you think you may be over-reacting slightly?

---

quote:

---

From my experience, I'm sure there are significant streams of modern protestantism - in the UK at least - whose theology is based largely on the Fall and the Atonement, and for whom the Creation and the Incarnation are little emphasised.

Do you not see this too? Churches who think of the earth and humankind as utterly corrupt and depraved, who see the church more like a lifeboat to rescue them from the stormy world rather than the yeast in the dough? That this is associated with all manner of other dualisms? And that these are the same churches which have a lower view of the sacraments? And that there is a connection?

I don't know a lot about RC or Orthodox theology, but for the reasons I explained earier, I think their higher view of the sacraments can lead them to a higher view of God's presence in all. (As you point our it can also become idolatrous, just as love of anything or anyone can).

I note you say you're at the more sacramental end of Episcopalianism, and I note that Fr G was once a UK Anglican. As such he would have had exposure in clergy chapters and so on to extreme protestant (and not very sacramental) UK Anglicans who hold some of the views I have described. You may not have many of the same in Episcopalianism.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps it would have been fairer of him to have asked "Do you feel that a church which has a lower emphasis on sacramentalism tends also to have a lower appreciation of the God-bearing character of creation" but it's not as snappy.

---

quote:

---

I think we would all agree that no churches deny creation altogether and no churches are totally unsacramental.

---

quote:

---

Anti-sacramentalism denies that materiality can be a vehicle of divine encounter and grace

---

quote:

---

Certain Christian traditions (let the reader understand) are uncomfortable with the idea that material things, (bread, wine, oil, water, flesh, matter etc. etc.), can be vehicles of the presence of God.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
given that our ability to destroy the environment is greater than ever, I think it behooves us to assess the creation-friendliness of our theologies.

---

quote:

---

I said:
you'd be hard pressed to show that Catholics and Orthodox don't see God more in some aspects of creation than in others

quote:

---

You responded:
Quite true. I was trying to show this relativism was untenable even as a protestant theology.

---

---

quote:

---

I said:
Sure, Protestants prefer the Bible to the pope and to eastern patriarchs. Why shouldn't they?

quote:

---

You responded:
Let me suggest that if you substitute "pope and eastern patriarchs" with any environmental cause, this attitude becomes much more disturbing. I'm not suggesting you have to be Catholic or Orthodox. But this argument can be used to absolve oneself of responsibility.

---

---

quote:

---

That physical attributes are unimportant to your concenption of THE Bible is much easier to assert than where it is, how much it weighs etc. etc.

---

quote:

---

My intent is not to disparage anyone, let alone someone like yourself who has given much to SOF; I contribute nothing, the cheap bastard that I am (I intend to pay dues after my apprenticeship).

---

quote:

---

When has sacramentalism led to idolatry? Does this mean that theology is important to peoples' lives and should be the matter of debate?

---

quote:

---

That's a caricature at best of a healthy protestant viewpoint, which instead believes that the sacramental material things are no more able to be vehicles of God's presence than anything else. Scot

---

quote:

---

If anything, as they do not specify certain things as being special or particular vehicles of God's presence, they tend to be more able to see a variety of material things as vehicles of God's presence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
What Ptarmigan said!

Ruth ... to deny particularity ... this bread, this wine, this oil etc., is to enter a mindset that finds no place for the incarnation except in an abstract sense ....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:

Amongst those Reformed traditions that take the material realm to furnish sacramental symbols rather than vehicles of God's Presence (both human and non-human) in the manner of Zwingli the creation can never be a place of theophany. How on earth (literally) this can be squared with the theophanies of both Old and New Testaments beats me. That's what I am getting at.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:

Dear Wood

(1) What is true of all members of a set must be true of each member of a set, (eg., a set of whole numbers must have no members with fractions).
(2) Particular members of a set may have properties of a different order than others members of the set but of the same kind, (eg., a set of even numbers has a commonality [divisibility by 2] but different values.
(3) To deny the possibility of different values within a universal set is to infer a universe which is dead. To deny commonality to all members of a universal set is a contradiction in terms.

Therefore, different values within a commonality may and and indeed must exist in a universal set with life bearing potential.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:


Certain particular values acquire a significance in the religious sphere by being "set aside" ... consecrated. That is how we may know that God, ourselves and the Universe are real. Cognition without this would be impossible. Cognition attempted without this leads to reductionism, which is the mother of agnosticism and spiritual death.

---

We only know that *we* are real because some things are consecrated?
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Scot

I stand corrected on changing values for members of the universal set .... even the value for "c" may not now be constant. I don't think it changes my argument though.

quote:

---

The disagreement is over whether those "special things" are the same for all people in all places at all times.

---

quote:

---

We only know that *we* are real because some things are consecrated?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
They are the same when Christ COMMANDS them until he comes again, (the Eucharist for example ... "DO THIS ...").

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
[QB]They are the same when Christ COMMANDS them until he comes again, (the Eucharist for example ... "DO THIS ...").

---

quote:

---

Ley Druid, you are taking the excesses of two specific historical upheavals and using them to define the nature of the protestant approach to creation. Not only does this lead you to a false conclusion, but it is also a line of reasoning which might not favor your own tradition if it were applied in reverse

---

quote:

---

all material things are equally able to be vehicles of God's presence.

---

quote:

---

He is "more present" in some things at some times.

---

quote:

---

that materiality can be a vehicle of divine encounter and grace

---

quote:

---

"more present" in some things at some times.

---

quote:

---

all material things are equally able to be vehicles of God's presence.

---

quote:

---

Yesterday (Sunday) at many churches around the world, God was present in the material form of consecrated wafer and wine. At my church we had bread and juice which was not specially blessed by anyone. Was God equally present in my bread and your wafer?

---

quote:

---

'magic' understandings of eucharist - Jengie

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:

Dear Daisymay

Would you extend the same logic to the incarnation?

---

quote:

---

At the point when God is "more present" in some things at some times, it cannot be that all material things are equally able to be vehicles of God's presence. [format condensed by scot]

---

quote:

---

Do you deny that many protestants explicitly deny that God was present in your bread the same way as the Catholic

---

quote:

---

I find the individualism in protestantism disturbing, because it seems to allow an individual such control over creation.

---

quote:

---

I think we may have finally reached the root of the matter. It was not protestantism which allowed an individual control over nature. It was the Creator.

---

quote:

---

I find the individualism in protestantism disturbing, because it seems to allow an individual such control over creation.

---

quote:

---

It was not protestantism which allowed an individual control over nature. It was the Creator.

---

quote:

---

Things can't be both more able and equally able at the same time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:

They are the same when Christ COMMANDS them until he comes again, (the Eucharist for example ... "DO THIS ...").

---

Note he did NOT say fight about it, or shut each other out of it!

(pet peeve)

BTW, I've attended many different types of churches and chosen to receive communion, regardless of their particular rules.


 

---

Posted by ptarmigan (# 138) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by golden_key:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:

They are the same when Christ COMMANDS them until he comes again, (the Eucharist for example ... "DO THIS ...").

---

Note he did NOT say fight about it, or shut each other out of it!

---

quote:

---

I've often wondered whether "Do this as oft as ye drink it" means as often as you drink the cup of blessing, i.e. every Passover.

---

quote:

---

Scot,
You condensed my quote so much as to eliminate the obvious self-contradiction. Let me repeat it

quote:

---

Things can't be both more able and equally able at the same time.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Daismway

... but the incarnation is more than reflecting God or glorifying God ... in Christ God Himself assumed our humanity. In this case the particular in identifiable and unrepeatable.

---

Fr. G,
I'm not talking about "the incarnation" as a theory. I'm talking about "the man Jesus." He perfectly did what we all do imperfectly.

He laid aside his "Godness", his deity, and became truly and wholly human, and in that state, Jesus showed us, and was, a human being doing what we are all created to do - but we mess up and dirty the reflection so it's smudged.

And it's not unrepeatable for when we see him face to face, we shall become like him.

And I can't pronounce my name when you spell it that way.
 

---

Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :
 
While I am certainly a sacramentalist, I think the subject can get bogged down with definitions, and I also think there's a compromise which can satisfy anyone who values the Eucharist. The medival depictions of bleeding wafers and such excesses led to the Catholic definition of the "double miracle" of transubstantiation. The first miracle being that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, and the second miracle is that they still have the form and taste of bread and wine.

Such mental gymnastics can take on the air of mind bending mumbo jumbo. When people gather in Christ's name, in obedience to His request, He promised that He would be present. He is therefore present in the bread and wine of communion. But to return to my proposed compromise to these theological arguements:

There are four stages to the Communion.
1. Offeratory
2. Consecration
3. Fracture
4. Communion.

At the offeratory, as we sing the hymn and dig in our pockets, we should be offering ourselves on the alter with the gifts, with all our sinfulness and weakness as a sacrifice to God.

At the Consecration, we should consecrate our lives to God's service, to the advancement of His kingdom on earth.

At the Fracture, we should be in union with Jesus in His broken body and poured out blood and mindul of our need to sacrifice ourselves to the Father s He did.

At the Communion, we cement our will to the will of God, vowing to walk steadfastly in His ways and saying "cleanse me and I will sin no more."

If we approach the Eucharist with this level of awe at God's total holiness and our own unworthiness, a reverence for Christ's passion for our salvation, and a desire to walk with God all the days of our lives, then He is truly present with us, whatever debnomination we belong to and whatever our view of sacramentalism
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
Fr. Gregory, you started this thread arguing for the God-bearing character of creation? Then you took the position that the sacraments make particular and accessible the universal and general. Now you are arguing that unless a community (which one?) decides that an object is a sacrament, then it is not.

I am finding it hard to follow the bouncing ball.

scot
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH:

When people gather in Christ's name, in obedience to His request, He promised that He would be present. He is therefore present in the bread and wine of communion.

---

quote:

---

all material things are equally able to be vehicles of God's presence

---

quote:

---

If individuals were not allowed control of nature, how is it that "poor old earth" is in such danger from us? Conversely, if there is a danger of harm to creation, then we apparently do have a measure of control?

---

quote:

---

what basis do you have for claiming that sacramentalists are more creation-friendly?

---

quote:

---

The assertion "all material things are equally able to be vehicles of God's presence"
is NOT reconcileable with sacramentalism.

---

quote:

---

Once [nonsacramentalists] control which elements of creation God is using, they can neglect those He isn't. Sacramentalists can obviously also be anti-environmental, but never by suggesting they are the arbiters of what is sacramental or not.

---

quote:

---

"Dear Sir, your astonishment's odd,
For I'm always about in the Quad;
And that's why the tree,
Continues to be,"
Signed "Yours faithfully, God."

---

quote:

---

This tree that you see
Shall continue to be
Observed by, yours faithfully, God."

---

Inanna
correcting herself before anyone else does!
 

---

Posted by golden_key (# 1468) on :
 
Fr. G, would you help me out, please?

I’ve been trying to work out, since the opening post, what exactly you want.

Frankly, it came across like an exam question. And I keep feeling that we’re supposed to come up with The Right Answer.

Are you concerned about the mess we’ve made of the environment?

Are you concerned that non-Orthodox are going down the wrong path?

Do you vehemently disagree with non-Orthodox theology?

Do you love God and the Eucharist so much that you can’t bear for anyone to think of them (in your opinion) less dearly than you do?

I’ve seen traces of all of these in your posts on this thread. But—IMVHO—they seem like a Rubik’s Cube, with the colors/ideas flashing around.

If you’d simplify things briefly by putting each of the colors on their proper sides, so we can see your point, it might help the discussion.


 

---

Posted by blackbird (# 1387) on :
 
daisymay, i agree with everything you've said.

paulth, i would argue that my experience of daily morning prayer accomplishes many of the criteria you set forth for communion. i try to take that mindset into my experience with people in my community, i don't keep it to myself. the difference is i don't have a single moment that i can point to and say, ah, i've done my sacrament i can get on with other things now.

to continue my lone-wolf rant (though wolves are very communal, they do go off by themselves from time to time just to be apart, and that lonesome howl is how they stay connected to their pack, according to barry lopez who wrote a lovely book, Of Wolves and Men), anyone who has experienced communal sacrament, for years, with indifferent or, if you can imagine it, power-mongering christians knows how difficult it is to subscribe to the idea that just because someone is present means they revere the idea of sacrament.

though i was raised episcopalian, most of my experiences were w/r. catholics, including my mother and husband and their relatives, who are also clearly able to separate real life from their church duties.

or maybe you've known christians who were proud of their "faithfulness" and judged non-churchgoers on that one exhibition. yet the attitude in many of the focused places i visited in my quest for a living Presence was one of sly in-jokes implying "those other, lesser christians, just don't get it".

those realizations, to name a few, have lead me to be suspect about the sacrament being an accurate thermometer for a living Presence in our midst. for it often seems more sacrilegious than sacrament not five minutes after the ritual is done and "regular" life resumes, regardless of how marvelous the pageant is. God may unite us, but people divide us.

i've long heard the rationalization that we're all sinners and you can't expect anything else in a church of humans. i think that generous excuse should apply to non-churchgoers as well, then.

i'll be renting a canoe with my vacationing non-churchgoing husband today to paddle around on the lake, despite our being neither sacramentalist nor anti-sacramentalist. we're just, glad to be alive and it's a beautiful day in autumn.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
FWIW, leaping blindly into the fray,my own view, which I think is shared by many, but I suspect not all, in my free-church-affiliated-to-the Baptist-union-but-definitely-not-Baptist-oh-no can be set out as follows:-

1. All of creation mediates God's presence (pace Romans 1:20) and thus is sacramental. This has tremendous implications for how we care for the environment. No one part of it is more imbued with God's presence than another, with the exception of...

2. Humans, who are created in God's image and to reflect His glory. This comes to particular fruition as those humans give themselves over to relationship with God through the Incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus, and thus constitute the Body of Christ. This, far from denying the sacramental nature of the Incarnation, affirms it.

Thus whilst, in common with many evangelicals, I would not view God as being present any more than He usually is in the communion bread and wine, seeing this as both commemorative and eschatological rather than the elements mediating some kind of Real Presence, nevertheless, flowing partly from 2 above, I would say that He is present in a 'special', more tangible (?) way when the church is gathered together in unity for communion to specially concentrate on the Incarnation, atonement etc and their consequences for us, that 'gathering together' having as its focus the (created) elements of bread and wine.

Hope that makes sense!

Yours in Christ

Matt
 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
RuthW,
I agree. But what disturbs me is the importance given to the individual in the non-sacramental tradition. In spite of what Daisymay is saying, I don't beleive the individual is the arbiter of reality.
Scot,
I have tried to show how things are not equal, but let me use your example. If you find God in your happy face, and everything else only has

quote:

---

equal potential as vehicles of God's presence

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
There is absolutely no reason for you to look for God in anything else than your happy face. Nothing else can bring you more. Its all equal. To me its a disturbing idea, people by themselves, alone with their happy faces, experiencing the ultimate vehicle of God's presences (because they are all equally ultimate).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
Matt Black, your post makes perfect sense. I completely agree.

scot

---

More than sense

It isn't that I have trouble with the notion that God is present in the bread and wine, or in some way present in holy places and sacred rites. It is that I have trouble following the idea that God isn't present anywhere (or everywhere?) else.

God, the creator of the universe, cannot said to be located within the universe, any more than a painter is located within a painting, or an author within a book. Lawrence Sterne is not more present on page 171 of Tristram Shandy than he is on page 181 (I draw a veil over page 71).

Of course an author might paint a clearer self-portrait in one part of a work than another, and by analogy (though a weak one) we might imagine that God paints a clearer self-portrait in one part of Creation than in another. A Christian will want to say that that self-portrait is clearest of all in the birth and life and work and death and resurrection of Jesus.

Maybe we are just using the words differently. To me, the truth that the whole of creation proclaims the glory of God if anything tends away from a sacramentalist approach because sacramentalism receives God only in certain parts of creation - but then it is obviously true that no creature can perceive or relate to the whole of creation at once, so any reception of God has to be particular.

I still don't see what it has got to do with supposed differences between East and West (rejecting for the timne being the uncharitable suppostition that the whole thing was a troll in the first place, an attempt to set up a thread to bash Protestants with)

Green politics is a Lutheran heresy - discuss
 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
I am suggesting that it is necessary to admit that things have different ability to be vehicles of God's grace. Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox always have. I never said

quote:

---

I've experienced God via my wafer-and-wine [snip]so I don't need to look any farther

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
I never said "I've experienced God via my wafer-and-wine [snip]so I don't need to look any farther."

---

quote:

---

There is absolutely no reason for you to look for God in anything else than your happy face. Nothing else can bring you more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
Matt Black, your post makes perfect sense. I completely agree.

scot

---

quote:

---

In spite of what Daisymay is saying, I don't beleive the individual is the arbiter of reality.

---

It works! Even the spelling mistake.

I'm not saying that the individual is the arbiter of reality. God is the arbiter of reality.

Read Inanna's (thank you, Inanna, I would have gone mad trying to access the depth of my memory's filing cabinet) verse. God keeps everything alive and real.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Ley Druid

quote:

---

There is absolutely no reason for you to look for God in anything else than your happy face. Nothing else can bring you more. Its all equal. To me its a disturbing idea, people by themselves, alone with their happy faces, experiencing the ultimate vehicle of God's presences (because they are all equally ultimate).

---

quote:

---

What Christ did not do was define the sacraments (I knew this was about the sacraments) as being more "God-bearing" than any other part of creation. Nor did He define what exactly the ritual was to do, other than remind us of Him.

You seem to be making the assumption that because Christ considered the eucharist to be important enough to command repetition, it is somehow different than other elements of creation. I do not believe that this assumption is demonstrably any more valid than assuming that anything which reminds us of Christ is equally "special".

---

quote:

---

No one part of it is more imbued with God's presence than another, with the exception of...Humans

---

quote:

---

present in a 'special', more tangible (?) way when the church is ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ptarmigan:

Some saints posting here seem to claim to have the gift of perceiving God in all creation without needing the sacraments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
[QB]Isn't that the very nature of worshipping in front of the TV set with your favourite tele-evangelist .... no community, no sacraments .... just me and Jesus being happy but with me making the rules. I might condescend to get involved with a church if it predominantly contained people just like me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Why are non-sacramentalists allowed to experience God in "special" ways (without limiting God), but not sacramentalists? For that matter, what could it possibly mean for something to be "equally "special"".

---

quote:

---

Lawrence Sterne is not more present on page 171 of Tristram Shandy than he is on page 181

---

quote:

---

We are going in circles here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
The phrase "more present" cannot be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Those not in communion with the venerable, historical, and most holy apostolic sees of Constantinople and Rome have, on this very thread, imputed to others the belief that God is "more present", something which is not true and which they do not hold, gone to great pains to demonstrate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Scot,
The assertion

quote:

---

all material things are equally able to be vehicles of God's presence

---

is NOT reconcileable with sacramentalism. A person encounters a finite number of material things. Those things which he/she doesn't encounter can't be vehicles of God's presence in that person's life.

---

quote:

---

Those not in communion with the venerable, historical, and most holy apostolic sees of Constantinople and Rome have, on this very thread, imputed to others the belief that God is "more present", something which is not true and which they do not hold, gone to great pains to demonstrate

---

quote:

---

Lawrence Sterne is not more present on page 171 of Tristram Shandy than he is on page 181

---

quote:

---

We are going in circles here.

---

• More present than in a non-sacrament;
• Present, as opposed to a non-sacrament in which he is not present;
• Present in a different mode than in a non-sacrament; or
• Something else which you will now explain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wood:
And, at this point, can I just register how appalled I am at the contempt some Christians are clearly held by their brothers and sisters, and at the demonstration of this in this thread?

---

Ditto.

And this is the kind of wrangling that's been splitting the church for 2000 years. We're not likely to get it resolved here!

And--big surprise--no one's apt to change their views. Gee, Christians with different ideas about things. Who woulda thunk it?
 

---

Posted by Destiny907 (# 3379) on :
 
This is a great forum to read! I had to jump in!

I don't have the intellectual capacity to argue theology or philosophy with anyone learned.

All I know is that one doesn't need the "sacraments" or any rituals whatsoever to be saved by Jesus Christ!!!!!!! All I know is that one must born again, with the Holy Spirit, and then he is a new Creature in Christ, Saved, once and forever.

A person can attend Mass, Confession, be annointed, pray thousands of Rosaries, flog, starve, suffer- that doesn't save them.

Being Born again is so simple-- there isn't anything one can do to gain it-- Christ did it all. All I know is God wants us to admit that we ARE sinners and can't change ourselves. Then we throw ourselves at his feet when we realize He is all- merciful and we have laid aside our pride. HE fills us with his Spirit.

BEING Christ-like is nothing like going to all the Masses, worship services, mouthing prayers. (A cat can put ON a dog suit- but is he a dog unless he was born one???)

God doesn't say do rituals and get points and I may save you!!! NO- he says There is therefor NO condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

What a person DOES and behaves like is only what he is inside. Period. A person has peace, love, kindness mercy, all the fruits because that is what is inside because of Christ. The acts do not save- the good acts come as a RESULT of having Christ inside.

So, to sum up, No, I do not believe we need any rituals for God to save us!!!

Jesus Saves to the UTTERMOST.
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
You're so doomed.
 

---

Posted by Karl (# 76) on :
 
This is a great forum to read! I had to jump in!

Good! I'm glad you like our little boat.

I don't have the intellectual capacity to argue theology or philosophy with anyone learned.

Nor do a lot of the people who do anyway. Don't worry about that.

All I know is that one doesn't need the "sacraments" or any rituals whatsoever to be saved by Jesus Christ!!!!!!!

And I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing with you there, Destiny.

All I know is that one must born again, with the Holy Spirit, and then he is a new Creature in Christ, Saved, once and forever.

Well, yes.....and no. But that's rather a large can of worms. Different thread, perhaps?

A person can attend Mass, Confession, be annointed, pray thousands of Rosaries, flog, starve, suffer- that doesn't save them.

Quite right. Again, I don't think anyone was saying that it would

Being Born again is so simple-- there isn't anything one can do to gain it-- Christ did it all. All I know is God wants us to admit that we ARE sinners and can't change ourselves. Then we throw ourselves at his feet when we realize He is all- merciful and we have laid aside our pride. HE fills us with his Spirit.

Again, yes....and no. This is a useful model for some people, but not for others. Some people are rather more sinned against than sinning, and I don't think that God initially meets them in this "Holy God Wot We've Done Wrong" mode. But, again, models of salvation is a huge subject, isn't it?

BEING Christ-like is nothing like going to all the Masses, worship services, mouthing prayers.

Careful. Devout people of sacramental traditions would not take kindly to being accused of merely "mouthing prayers".

(A cat can put ON a dog suit- but is he a dog unless he was born one???)

God doesn't say do rituals and get points and I may save you!!!

Again, no-one's saying He does

NO- he says There is therefor NO condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Yes. And this means what in relation to the church's rituals and sacraments?

What a person DOES and behaves like is only what he is inside. Period. A person has peace, love, kindness mercy, all the fruits because that is what is inside because of Christ. The acts do not save- the good acts come as a RESULT of having Christ inside.

Yes, but again I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Want to discuss it?

So, to sum up, No, I do not believe we need any rituals for God to save us!!!

Nor does anyone else on this thread, I think you'll find.

Jesus Saves to the UTTERMOST.

We can agree there.

A word to the wise - don't try to explain you're entire theology in one post - God took thousands of years, 30 of them in person.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
Welcome aboard, Destiny907!

scot
 

---

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
<aside>Hello, Destiny and welcome! Your post was comprehensive and interesting....<aside finished>

Well, folks, here's something else to be disagreed with!

Discussing Real Presence, the efficacy of sacrament, God's presence in the sacrament of life, the universe and everything is great fun. And I could do all that 'till the cows come home. But I guess for me the bottom line is this:

I enjoy the sacrament of nature, when I sense God's presence in the world and other human beings. There is something about the beauty of sunset, countryside, seascape, etc, that can help me in my worship and enjoyment of God's presence as nothing else can.

I also enjoy the sacraments defined ritually in the church setting because although I believe God is absolutely present at all times, the physicality of the sacramental actions can act as touches of his presence, again, in a way that nothing else can. Water is poured - maybe for baptism - and folks get wet, the floor gets messy, candles get lit and there's heat and candle-wax dripping, the chaos and paradox of trying to do anything solemnly and with dignity, when you've got a 14 month child wriggling and screaming in your arms (to say nothing of adult baptism!); in all those sensations God mediates 'something' of his presence. Not something more, but something that is already present; but, and here for me is the crux, in a way that is specifically about the Kingdom of God and its values.

Similarly, in the Eucharist, there's wine (strong alcoholic stuff sometimes!), there's bread or wafer; there's the practical business of the minister washing and drying hands, of cleaning up afterwards. The efficient but reverently joyful distribution of food and drink (of a sort!) to crowds of people. Simple commonplace actions that have been adopted into ritual, in my humble opinion, showing that nothing is beyond the notice and presence of God.

There's the physical sensation of tasting, the 'bite' and 'nose' of the wine, the crumbliness of the bread. The need, sometimes, to stand or kneel, to move one's body in order to make the effort to acknowledge that Presence. Even afterwards, the faint whiff of alcohol on the breath of co-communicants, demonstrating that we've shared in the same meal, to remember the same glorious Lord and his precious death and resurrection and glorious ascension. It's all so PHYSICAL! And I love that. I love the fact that I belong to a religion which affirms ALL my senses, external and internal; that allows me to taste and smell(!), feel, touch, enjoy.

I can do all these things outside the church and equally feel God's presence and love; but for me there is no anomoly to feel these sensations within a church service either. I really want to 'taste and see that the Lord is good'; not literally in the sense of biting Christ (though I am respectful of those for whom this aspect is essentially important), but in the sense of feeling that bread and wine, and knowing that even in that most necessary and ridiculously commonplace action of eating a morsel of food - God is there! Even there.

So for me the ritual sacramentalism of the Church is very much about affirming the already present character of God in creation. But in an overtly 'other' way; not separate from nature, but fulfilling it.

This is my personal feeling towards 'sacrament'; so it's all about feelings and instincts. I've deliberately left the academic bit out, because far better minds than mine have covered all that, I'm glad to say!
 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
Scot,
Early on I suggested the idea of a sacramental encounter. I think we still all agree on the necessity of an encounter with God. God is present in all creation. But unless a human is present, no part of creation can be a sacramental encounter between wo/man and God. So in a sacrament God is never

quote:

---

More present than in a non-sacrament;
Present, as opposed to a non-sacrament in which he is not present;
Present in a different mode than in a non-sacrament

---

quote:

---

to clarify how sacramentalism differs from non-sacramentalism if you agree that any object can convey God's presence

---

quote:

---

What a person DOES and behaves like is only what he is inside. Period.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
Fine, Ley Druid. Explain to me then your conception of how God is present in a sacrament. Is he:

• More present than in a non-sacrament;
• Present, as opposed to a non-sacrament in which he is not present;
• Present in a different mode than in a non-sacrament; or
• Something else which you will now explain.

---

quote:

---

inherently efficacious and necessary for salvation.

---

quote:

---

God is present in all of creation, but more discernable in the specific sacraments

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Are you saying you can't discern God more in the sacraments or that other people can't?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Scot,
I think we still all agree on the necessity of an encounter with God. God is present in all creation. But unless a human is present, no part of creation can be a sacramental encounter between wo/man and God.

---

quote:

---

inanimate objects cannot of themselves mediate God's presence

---

quote:

---

Ley Druid, you have not shown how a sacramentalist differs from a non-sacramentalist except that the former believes that God's presence cannot be conveyed without a human receptor, and the latter does not.

---

quote:

---

I would not presume to say where other people may perceive God.

---

quote:

---

I would not presume to say where other people may not perceive God.

---

quote:

---

Either the atheist has chosen not to see God or God has chosen not to reveal himself

---

quote:

---

I cannot [s]ay whether the atheist (or anyone else) may or may not perceive God

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
The fact that the atheist does not perceive God at St. Peter's does not contradict my position. Either the atheist has chosen not to see God or God has chosen not to reveal himself. I cannot way whether the atheist (or anyone else) may or may not perceive God in the cathedral, in the desert or in the smiley face on his wall.
?

---

quote:

---

all material things are equally able to be vehicles of God's presence

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Antisacramentalists and nonsacramentalists seem to be fond of impeding communication.

---

Hardly.
 

---

Posted by golden_key (# 1468) on :
 
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Yes they COULD be sacramental encounters.

Fine with me--I love perceiving God in nature.

It just seems that you're saying that something is *more* of a sacrament if *more* people can/do perceive it.

If that's the case, then one could make the argument that all of creation--including humans--is the greatest sacrament. Because that's where the most people have found hints of God's presence.

Please read the above and tell me what you don't understand about how atheists don't experience the sacramental.

You seem to be saying that choice is a necessary part of perception/communication. Not so.

Someone might not be *able* to perceive, for whatever reasons.

Someone might force communication on you. If you're walking down the street and someone yells at you, that's not something you *chose*. But you do perceive it, if you're able at that particular moment.

Someone may perceive something, but define or experience it differently than you.

An atheist may not choose to be an atheist, may not choose to reject sacraments, may not ignore God. An atheist may simply experience life differently than you do.

But then let's talk about how God communicates with people, because that is what sacramentalism is all about.

IMHO, God communicates in all kinds of ways, all the time. God is available to everyone, all the time. Life gets in the way.

Some people may feel they meet God most directly in the Eucharist. Or sitting by a waterfall. Or when they're at peace. Or when they eat really good chocolate ice cream!

Antisacramentalists and nonsacramentalists seem to be fond of impeding communication.

Uh, the ones on this thread have tried to *help* communication by asking you to declare very plainly what you mean...and not bash them.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by golden_key:
Uh, the [non-sacramentalists] on this thread have tried to *help* communication by asking you to declare very plainly what you mean...and not bash them.

---

quote:

---

You seem to be saying that choice is a necessary part of perception/communication. Not so. ...

---

What you said would be true if God were material, the senses do not require consent. Perceiving God is not the same thing as perceiving an object (even though God is present in the object) because the object is not God. Something about God is beyond the object and unless you deny free will, one can chose to reject to perceive (communicate with) the God beyond the object and sensations. Do you deny the free will to reject God?

I truly don't wish to offend anybody. I dislike ideas, not people. I will try to tone down my flair for the dramatic. I hope this thread has been useful for others, it has been for me.
 

---

Posted by golden_key (# 1468) on :
 
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
What you said would be true if God were material, the senses do not require consent. Perceiving God is not the same thing as perceiving an object (even though God is present in the object) because the object is not God. Something about God is beyond the object and unless you deny free will, one can chose to reject to perceive (communicate with) the God beyond the object and sensations. Do you deny the free will to reject God?

Several things:

--No, I don't necessarily deny the free will to reject God--but I'm not sure how often anyone actually *does*. People may reject who they think God is, just as they may accept who they think God is. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with *who God is*, so they're not necessarily rejecting/accepting God.

--What if someone has been hurt in such a way that they can't perceive God in any way? Or trust God in any way?

--You said:

Something about God is beyond the object and unless you deny free will, one can chose to reject to perceive (communicate with) the God beyond the object and sensations.

But if it's a matter of choice, then you have to know God is there, and what/who God is.

I think it would help if we separated "perception" from "communication". Not the same thing.

BTW, if someone really does reject God, that is a form of communication.

--If God is present in a sacrament, specifically the Eucharist, someone may perceive the objects (bread and wine) but not perceive God at all. That goese for both non-believers and non-believers. Is that their fault? Is it still a sacrament?

I truly don't wish to offend anybody. I dislike ideas, not people. I will try to tone down my flair for the dramatic. I hope this thread has been useful for others, it has been for me.

FYI, if you really are just being dramatic, it isn't coming across that way in this thread. It's coming across as "Everyone else BAD", followed by repeated bonks on the head, followed by dumping truckloads of heavy-duty theology on us--and not hearing us when we complain. That's my opinion...and from some of the other posts I've seen, others seem to share it.
 

---

Posted by golden_key (# 1468) on :
 
Please forgive my typos. In the previous post, a mucked-up sentence should read:

"That goes for both non-believers and believers."
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I don't think that anyone yet has answered Paul's point that it's not an "either / or" issue. Sacramentalists, agreeing with this go on to say that SPECIFIC encounters in SPECIFIC ways (the sacraments) help make tangible and particular what is generalised and universal. In so doing the universal is made more vivid. I may be moved by a glorious vista or sunset but I eat the body of Christ and drink of His blood. Christ in the former is unfocussed, in the latter, sharp and clear. Having received Communion I return to the vista or the sunset with clarified vision.
 

---

Posted by golden_key (# 1468) on :
 
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
I don't think that anyone yet has answered Paul's point that it's not an "either / or" issue.

Well, somewhat similarly, on page 3, in response to your

"Anti sacramentalists may make grand statements about God being everywhere .... we can all ... we SHOULD all agree with that. My point is that antisacramentalists ADDITIONALLY deny that God is SOMEWHERE."

I said:
"Actually, Everywhere is composed of all the Somewheres. Forest and the trees. It's both/and, not either/or.

Sacramentalists, agreeing with this go on to say that SPECIFIC encounters in SPECIFIC ways (the sacraments) help make tangible and particular what is generalised and universal. In so doing the universal is made more vivid. I may be moved by a glorious vista or sunset but I eat the body of Christ and drink of His blood. Christ in the former is unfocussed, in the latter, sharp and clear. Having received Communion I return to the vista or the sunset with clarified vision.

Yes, specific encounters do help in relating to the universal; and yes, Eucharist/Communion can have that effect (regardless, I think, of your beliefs about what actually happens to the bread/wine).

But some people can find God "sharp and clear" in Creation, people, and the aforementioned smiley face. And not find God in the Eucharist. Or not find God at all.
 

---

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
Perhaps I am expressing this poorly (I have not been well, and hope I am clear), but I see some problems with concepts of creation and Incarnation arising from that, in recent years, the earth and all of its physical features life (plants, animals, etc.) are not seen in their proper light. Francis of Assisi, in his Canticle of the Creatures, was expressing glory for the Creator , and seeing each creature (sun, moon, and so forth) as giving honour to God by being what it was intended to be by Him. It is all too common now for us to descend to some sort of "earth religion," where God is basically ignored but ecology is an end in itself, or there is a highly distorted view of human nature.

We do have a unique dignity as humans - Christ himself assumed (and deified) our nature, and we are granted gifts of reason, choices, love that rocks and rats do not share. Indeed, stewardship of other resources is part of the Christian message, but there are many areas today where it seems that mankind is the worst part of creation - drinking the water, chopping down the trees, eating the animals. Human dignity is ignored - we are no different from the amoeba or dog - human life is the earth's main burden.
 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
I agree with Newman's Own. Happy belated feast day of St. Francis, which was yesterday!
It is easy to say no SPECIFIC part of creation is more a sacrament than any other. It is also easy to say the world is flat. Nobody can disabuse another of such ideas, but I feel that criticism of those ideas will reveal that they either rest upon dubious assumptions or allow disturbing conclusions. Again, I apologize if I offended anyone whose ideas I whish to discredit.

quote:

---

What if someone has been hurt in such a way that they can't perceive God in any way? Or trust God in any way?

---

quote:

---

But if it's a matter of choice, then you have to know God is there, and what/who God is.

---

quote:

---

if someone really does reject God, that is a form of communication

---

quote:

---

If God is present in a sacrament, specifically the Eucharist, someone may perceive the objects (bread and wine) but not perceive God at all. That goes for both non-believers and non-believers. Is that their fault? Is it still a sacrament?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Sacraments are sacraments because the Church obeys Christ's intention and will. It is not merely a matter of institutional cultic forms as Protestant polemic has longtime and wearingly now repeated.

---

quote:

---

*cough* boll *cough* ocks *cough*

---

quote:

---

They that do not hold the sacrament as Christ instituted it, have no sacrament. All papists do not, therefore they have no sacrament. LUTHER'S TABLE-TALK paragraph CCCLXIII

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Come on Wood; you can't deny that Protestantism's classic position on the sacraments is that the Roman Catholic Church has not only perverted them but also made them her own private institutional property. The latter charge is thrown against the Orthodox as well every time we resist "inter-Communion."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Wood,
I'm not personally familiar with the idiom, but to express one's speachless wonderment, and utter inability to reply wouldn't it be more appropriate to say

quote:

---

*cough* boll *cough* ocks *cough*

---

{/qb]

---

quote:

---

[qb]Let us turn to the mild words of the Father of Protestantism

quote:

---

They that do not hold the sacrament as Christ instituted it, have no sacrament. All papists do not, therefore they have no sacrament. LUTHER'S TABLE-TALK paragraph CCCLXIII

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Coyly, most people seem unwilling to come out and say "nobody can have any sacraments."

---

quote:

---

Why do protestants seem unwillingy to take any responsibility for the consequences of protestantism (televangelists etc) and ashamed of what their forefathers said. Catholics are forever responsible for the crusades and the inquisition etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Coyly, most people seem unwilling to come out and say "nobody can have any sacraments."

---

quote:

---

What they advance instead is "everything is equally able to be a sacrament".

---

quote:

---

Sounds better than Luther, but the ideas aren't that far apart.

---

quote:

---

I agree with your diachronic reading of Luther's statements

---

quote:

---

(not sure all protestants do)

---

quote:

---

but even in his day, the logical conclusion of his statement is that the criteria for a sacrament was if others "hold the sacrament as Christ instituted it". From which it is quite logical that someone could conclude no one has a sacrament.

---

quote:

---

After which it would be convenient for someone to say I'll call a sacrament whatever I want.

---

quote:

---

Do you deny there are protestants at each step of this journey?

---

quote:

---

Why do protestants seem unwilling to take any responsibility for the consequences of protestantism (televangelists etc)

---

quote:

---

and ashamed of what their forefathers said.

---

quote:

---

Catholics are forever responsible for the crusades and the inquisition etc.

---

quote:

---

; broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:

It only is a pejorative term used by Catholics to generalize an obscure personal fetish to untold millions of innocent people.

I will never again use the word. Mea culpa.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Sacraments are sacraments because the Church obeys Christ's intention and will.

---

quote:

---

My point here has never been to debate the definition of a sacrament. I have said I accept those of others. I have given mine because it was asked of me.
What I feel worthy of debate is the idea of anti-sacramentalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IanB:
It seems to me that a certain tetchiness has hovered over this thread from an early stage. Ley Druid wrote

quote:

---

My point here has never been to debate the definition of a sacrament. I have said I accept those of others. I have given mine because it was asked of me.
What I feel worthy of debate is the idea of anti-sacramentalism.

---

But isn't this part of the problem? If we don't have an agreed idea what we are talking about, how on earth is agreement to be reached (or at least the difference to be understood)?

---

quote:

---

God can reveal Himself wherever he chooses. Perhaps things become sacramental then because we are able to gain a fleeting glimpse of their true, redeemed nature, a sort of foretaste of something that was always their potential.

---

quote:

---

As far as I can see we obey the intention and will of Christ when we do this (and, since the words are Pauls from 1 Corinthians, presumably the intention of the apostle); surely this means we are celebrating a sacrament?

---

quote:

---

Perhaps things become sacramental then because we are able to gain a fleeting glimpse of their true, redeemed nature, a sort of foretaste of something that was always their potential.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
If they do deny their sacramental nature are they not "anti-sacramentalists"?

---

quote:

---

If they do deny their sacramental nature are they not "anti-sacramentalists"? Are there no anti-sacramentalists out there?

---

quote:

---

If you don't think it exists (or can't exist) then your answer is No Fr., it doesn't deny anything because it doesn't exist.

---

quote:

---

Ley Druid and I keep gnawing away at this bone because we observe that none / other or anti sacramentalists (let's just say those who don't place a great value on sacraments ... not just different but rather a lesser value) are keen to stress the God-bearing character of creation partly in reaction to our criticisms of their own position on particular presences. We regard, however, such reactions as a bit of a smokescreen around the real issue or question:-

We all know God is everywhere (yes ALL of us) ... the point is ... can he be SOMEWHERE and in a particular way?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Daisymay

The Incarnation is not a "theory" it is a fact and as such it cannot be separated from the data of Jesus as God the Word made flesh. In Him God and humanity are connected at the ontological level not merely the intentional or by way of exemplarism. The Incarnation means that in Him God was "somewhere" and not only "everywhere." This is the connection I was making in sacramentalism between the universal and the particular. Furthermore as "bearers of the Holy Spirit" we are to become by grace what He is by nature.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:

Sacraments are sacraments because the Church obeys Christ's intention and will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
Father Gregory,

I imagine that they are keen to stress the God bearing character of creation because that's what they actually think, whether goaded by you or no.

Can God be SOMEWHERE and in a particular way? Well yes - I imagine that all of us who have stayed this far believe in the Incarnation.

Does belief in the sacraments flow inevitably from belief in the incarnation? For you and I, yes. For others, no.

Which refutes, I think, your initial proposition. Anti-sacramentalism (which isn't, I think we are all agreed, a very good term) is not, actually, a denial of the God-bearing character of creation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RuthW:
stands up, cheers loudly

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gregory:
Ley Druid and I keep gnawing away at this bone because we observe that none / other or anti sacramentalists (let's just say those who don't place a great value on sacraments ... not just different but rather a lesser value) are keen to stress the God-bearing character of creation partly in reaction to our criticisms of their own position on particular presences. We regard, however, such reactions as a bit of a smokescreen around the real issue or question:-

We all know God is everywhere (yes ALL of us) ... the point is ... can he be SOMEWHERE and in a particular way?

---

quote:

---

What I said was, everything is equally able to be a vessel of God's presence. But - and you may at least agree with me partially on this one - the sacrament is at least partly in the doing, isn't it?

Jesus says, "do this in memory of me", and he means do something. An Orthodox sacrament is not a sacrament until it has been blessed by a priest, is it? Similarly, the Baptist sacrament of Communion is only a sacrament inasmuch as we are doing it together. The ritual is part of the sacrament.

You can't simply go, "this object is a sacrament". The object AND the ritual are the sacrament for you; for me it's the ritual that's the sacrament.

---

quote:

---

“Anti-sacramentalism has no room for a doctrine of creation within the salvation schema. We are paying for that narrowness today with our privatised world-injurious rapaciousness.”

---

quote:

---

“According to …(anti-sacramentalism) God is only present APART from the material realm. In consequence the doctrines of creation and salvation are separated. By so doing only humans can be saved and transformed. Creation can "go hang" and we can pollute it, abuse it and manipulate it to our own selfish ends with impunity.”

---

It takes the tragically distorted perspective of a religious zealot to find in specific differences of doctrine the root of complex, world-wide problems and evils. Father Gregory, “anti-sacramentalism” is not the cause of environmental rape and neither "sacramentalism" nor Eastern Orthodoxy are the cures.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Just come back from an alchemical psychotherapy class (don't tell Deserted ) and got a new aspect of this.

Once we have gone through the descent into the abyss, solutio - Psalm 69 was quoted:

"Save me my God!
"For the waters have come up to my neck.
"I sink in deep mire,
"Where there is no foothold;
"I have come into deep waters,
"And the flood sweeps over me.
"I am weary with my crying;
"My throat is parched.
"My eyes grow dim with waiting for my God."

and Psalm 130;

"Out of the depths I cry to thee, O Lord!"

we are reborn (our ego is reborn as a spiritual part of us), we are united with God in cunjunctio, our ego is united with our true self in conjunctio, and we forever hold within ourselves the awareness of God, the Divine, in the whole of creation. We may go through different emotions and experiences, but that deep foundational knowledge is always there.

Now, some of that may be disputable, but it has illustrated to me that the awareness of God in creation is different in different people - and that we all perceive God and creation differently according to our tempraments and personalities. And, that awareness is also probably a mystical thing. It may depend on what kind of mystical experiences we have, but all Christians IMO are mystics.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
I was drawn into this thread from its scion about lampooning Protestants who protest being called Protestants. I am revisiting The Ship after a long, long hiatus. Pardon the intrusion; I won’t stay long.

---

No, don't go - come over to the playhouse. I bet you can bring some interesting and digestible treats.
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
What is the playhouse?
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear JimT

quote:

---

Father Gregory, “anti-sacramentalism” is not the cause of environmental rape and neither "sacramentalism" nor Eastern Orthodoxy are the cures.

---

quote:

---

Sure God can REVEAL himself somewhere more than He REVEALS himself elsewhere, but to say that he is more PRESENT somewhere more than others is daft, because that denies God's omnipresence.

---

quote:

---

I imagine that they are keen to stress the God bearing character of creation because that's what they actually think, whether goaded by you or no.

Can God be SOMEWHERE and in a particular way? Well yes - I imagine that all of us who have stayed this far believe in the Incarnation.

Does belief in the sacraments flow inevitably from belief in the incarnation? For you and I, yes. For others, no.

Which refutes, I think, your initial proposition. Anti-sacramentalism (which isn't, I think we are all agreed, a very good term) is not, actually, a denial of the God-bearing character of creation.

---

.... Professor Yaffle

Everyone is applauding the good professor but consider ...

Not everyone here seems to believe that God can be identifiably and reliably present somewhere in something. Still less can we assume that everyone here believes in the Incarnation. On this thread alone I have heard it referred to as a "theory."

As to the rebuttal of the link between anti-sacramentalism and the God-bearing character of all creation .... as I have said before I regard with suspicion a generalist and universalist position on the Presence that is not backed up by the concrete and particular notion of the Presence in specific locales.
 

---

Posted by golden_key (# 1468) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
What is the playhouse?

---

Check over on the thread about whether there's such a thing as a Protestant. Conversation between myself and DaisyMay.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:


Not everyone here seems to believe that God can be identifiably and reliably present somewhere in something. Still less can we assume that everyone here believes in the Incarnation. On this thread alone I have heard it referred to as a "theory."

---

C'mon, Fr. G,
You should know me well enough to realise I am extremely orthodox as well as radical and individual in my theology. And flaming doesn't do anything but add to my incandescence. It feels nice.

When I spoke of the incarnation as a theory, I was meaning it as an intellectual or academic idea. This does not mean that it is not a true concept. Nor that I don't believe it.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Daisymay

We still don't agree I think. The Incarnation is not a concept that I believe (intellectual or academic) it is an actual event extra-intra history which I believe as fact.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I read theory as in "theory of gravity" - it may be a theory but that doesn't make it any less real that if I jump off a bridge I'll fall. Perhaps that's just because I'm a physicist though.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Of course it's a fact, but it's also an idea, a concept, an understanding.

And for Jesus (and the others in the Trinity) it was an experience.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Daisymay

OK ... now we are agreed.
 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
Wood said

quote:

---

Ley Druid, I do not take kindly to being ignored. Engage with our arguments or shut up.

---

quote:

---

If one denies that something is a member of a class, one is not denying the existence of the class or suggesting the existence of said class is a bad thing.

---

quote:

---

Which refutes, I think, your initial proposition. Anti-sacramentalism (which isn't, I think we are all agreed, a very good term) is not, actually, a denial of the God-bearing character of creation.

---

quote:

---

Seeing the pope is anti christ, I believe him to be a devil incarnate. LUTHER'S TABLE-TALK

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:

But I feel I do not bear my affliction alone, but rather I suffer it nobly with Luther

quote:

---

Seeing the pope is anti christ, I believe him to be a devil incarnate. LUTHER'S TABLE-TALK

---

---

LD, if you're going to put yourself in the company of Herr Martin, you just might want to check these out:



See Luther Run!

Reformation Polka

You might be a Lutheran if...

(Note: these are from a Lutheran site.)
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Father Gregory,

You said:

quote:

---

You make the statement but you do not justify it.

---

quote:

---

“anti-sacramentalism” is not the cause of environmental rape and neither "sacramentalism" nor Eastern Orthodoxy are the cures.

---

quote:

---

Certain Christian traditions (let the reader understand) are uncomfortable with the idea that material things, (bread, wine, oil, water, flesh, matter etc. etc.), can be vehicles of the presence of God.

According to this understanding (anti-sacramentalism) God is only present APART from the material realm. In consequence the doctrines of creation and salvation are separated. By so doing only humans can be saved and transformed. Creation can "go hang" and we can pollute it, abuse it and manipulate it to our own selfish ends with impunity.

---

quote:

---

“Anti-sacramentalism has no room for a doctrine of creation within the salvation schema. We are paying for that narrowness today with our privatised world-injurious rapaciousness.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:

5. Deep concern for the environment is displayed by atheists in Greenpeace and North American natives, who have never been transformed by the sacraments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
[QUOTE]Now, I'd been wondering about Greenpeace. Do we know what proportion of sacramentalists to anti?sacramentalists are members or activists within that organisation?

I've also been wondering if any denomination are particularly environmentally friendly - the Mennonites maybe?

---

I don't know about Greenpeace (though I have been a member of "Friends of the Earth" in the past). I suspect that most of them pay little if any attention to any kind of Christianity & those that do have are likely to have a sort of wishy-washy lets-all-get-Celtic-and-play-harps approach.

It is pretty much a matter of historical record that modern "environmentalist" and "green" politics originated in, and are strongest in, the countries round the North Sea. Scandinavia, Britain, and especially the Netherlands and northern Germany.

Those are also the European countries with the largest numbers of vegetarians, and with the largest memberships of conservation organisations. By far.

I strongly suspect that says more about economics than sacramentalism - these are the most urbanised, places in the European cultural world, with the longest history of industrialisation. (We had factories before those Yankees even had a constitution )

But they are, as it happens, traditionally hotbeds of Protestantism.

I can see no evidence whatsoever that the European nations with an Eastern Christian tradition have been less polluting or more environment-friendly than those with a Western tradition. Well, to be honest, looking at the mess made of Russia, the evidence all points the other way. The Orthodox have messed up the planet something rotten. As I said before I think economic explanations are more likely to be helpful than liturgical.

I once read a book that tried to claim that Green politics was the natural tendency for authoritarianism to take in a previously Protestant society, just as Fascism was the natural authoritarianism of an ex-Roman Catholic society. AFAIR the author was mostly interested in Germany & didn't talk about the Eastern churches much.

(Another author talked about family structure, claiming that isolated nuclear families tended to Protestantism and democratic politics; patriarchal families to Catholicism and fascist politcs; and large extended families (of a sort the author claimed existed in Greece, the Ukraine & parts of Spain) to Orthodoxy and anarchist politics. I suspect that this idea too is loony.)

But it is certainly true that Green politics have been associated with traditionally Protestant nations and that the Russians are Europe's worst polluters.
 

---

Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Ley Druid:

quote:

---

P. Anti-clericalism denies the God-bearing character of the clergy.
R. In the priesthood of all believers, the clergy is not limited to a specific group. Which refutes, I think, your initial proposition. Anti-clericalism (which isn't, I think we are all agreed, a very good term) is not, actually, a denial of the God-bearing character of the clergy. Show me one example of anti-clericalism.

---

quote:

---

You and Father Gregory are unable to accept this because your ecclesiology maintains that you *are* the one true church and, therefore, the others *must* be deficient.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
I have to admit, the most recent arguments have been so sublime, I find it easier to laugh than engage

---

quote:

---

Professor Yaffle says

quote:

---

If one denies that something is a member of a class, one is not denying the existence of the class or suggesting the existence of said class is a bad thing.

---

quote:

---

Which refutes, I think, your initial proposition. Anti-sacramentalism (which isn't, I think we are all agreed, a very good term) is not, actually, a denial of the God-bearing character of creation.

---

P. Anti-clericalism denies the God-bearing character of the clergy.
R. In the priesthood of all believers, the clergy is not limited to a specific group. Which refutes, I think, your initial proposition. Anti-clericalism (which isn't, I think we are all agreed, a very good term) is not, actually, a denial of the God-bearing character of the clergy. Show me one example of anti-clericalism.

P. Anti-catholicism denies the God-bearing character of catholics.
R. The catholic church is not limited to popedom. Which refutes, I think, your initial proposition. Anti-catholicism (which isn't, I think we are all agreed, a very good term) is not, actually, a denial of the God-bearing character of catholics. Show me one example of anti-catholicism.

P. Anti-semitism denies the God bearing character of God's chosen people.
R. God's chosen people is not limited to the Jews. Which refutes, I think, your initial proposition. Anti-semitism (which isn't, I think we are all agreed, a very good term) is not, actually, a denial of the God-bearing character of God's chosen people. Show me one example of anti-semitism.

I probably could have tolerated the loss of a perfecty good adjective. THE WORD THAT SHALL NOT BE MENTIONED. But you have gone too far. You deny me the prefix "anti-", rob me of hundreds of words and cheat me of countless new word possibilities. My scrabble game might never recover. The longest word is now reduced to nondisestablishmentarianism.

But I feel I do not bear my affliction alone, but rather I suffer it nobly with Luther

quote:

---

Seeing the pope is anti christ, I believe him to be a devil incarnate. LUTHER'S TABLE-TALK

---

---

According to an earlier post of yours, Luther is the "Father of Protestants". Contextually quotations are used within text to back up points made, and by posting this quotation, made by the "Father of Protestants" you are implicitly saying that all Protestants must agree with Luther's suggestion that the Pope is the Anti-Christ.

Wood has already pointed out to you why this view is wrong:
Luther's quotation is a 16th century political statement, not a 21st century theological one.

Ok, finished channelling Wood now

Viki
 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
Sarkycow said

quote:

---

According to an earlier post of yours, Luther is the "Father of Protestants". Contextually quotations are used within text to back up points made, and by posting this quotation, made by the "Father of Protestants" you are implicitly saying that all Protestants must agree with Luther's suggestion that the Pope is the Anti-Christ.

---

quote:

---

The thesis statement presupposes that God is somehow confined to those elements of creation which comprise the sacraments.

---

quote:

---

As to terminology ... that really doesn't matter. We call them "mysteries" anyway, not sacraments. What does matter is that they are God's provision for us through his Church.

---

quote:

---

The Orthodox have messed up the planet something rotten.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
May I remind you that it was the godless atheistic bloody (literally) Soviets who screwed up Russia and that Greece is a now a very secular "let's-ape-the-Europeans" state.

---

quote:

---

The difference between "sacrament" and "mystery" are profound, and I think the West suffers greatly from using the former, as it limits the "presence"...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
You're narrowing the choice again. Kyoto?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
You're narrowing the choice again. Kyoto?

---

I'm afraid I don't follow you. My point was that if you can excuse the traditionally-Orthodox countries on the grounds that they do not practice Orthodoxy as a nation, then I can excuse the traditionally-Protestant nations on the same grounds. That particular line of reasoning appears to be a dead end.

---

quote:

---

Anti-sacramentalism (which isn't, I think we are all agreed, a very good term) is not, actually, a denial of the God-bearing character of creation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
I propose that in the Roman Catholic Church, anti-sacramentalism is a denial of the God-bearing character of creation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Ken

quote:

---

The Orthodox have messed up the planet something rotten.

---

May I remind you that it was the godless atheistic bloody (literally) Soviets who screwed up Russia and that Greece is a now a very secular "let's-ape-the-Europeans" state.

---

quote:

---

Even a celibate will not remain a celibate for long unless he or she finds an appropriate expression for intimacy .... given and received. So it is with the sacraments. They are our moments of TANGIBLE communal intimacy with God.

---

How very perceptive of you Fr. Gregory! I know this in my heart but have not been able to put this into so few word. Thank you!

I think of all those celibate Orthodox who are not miserably dried up sticks of "celibates" that we have probably all seen at various times. The warm love, humour and openness of people like Fr. Barnabas (Memory Eternal!) of Wales who was absolutely celibate and absolutely intimate. Yes those who are not intimate (and in some way deeply sexual beings(Gulp!) are half dead already and therefore not celibate at all!
 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
I am delighted to see that Professor Yaffle is an honorable man.
Alan Cresswell,
I feel I made a blunder early on this thread. I allowed myself to be baited by the request

quote:

---

you had better tell me which traditions you think are polluted with this Gnostic heresy. -- ken

---

quote:

---

We must overcome the rather widespread tendency to reject any salvific mediation and to put the individual sinner in direct contact with God, because salvation came to us first of all from the mediation of Jesus' historical humanity and then, since the Resurrection, through his Mystical Body, the Church. Consequently, God's plan is sacramental, that is, he makes himself present in a finite figure such as the humanity of Jesus or the sacramental signs of the Church.
-- John Paul II ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER TO THE BISHOPS OF PORTUGAL ON THEIR "AD LIMINA" VISIT p. 4.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sarkycow:
Unfortunately Wood is seriously busy with Real Life(TM) tonight

---

Wood, you have the trademark on that?? Is it lucrative? Seems it wouldn't be--most people don't spend much time there!
 

---

Posted by golden_key (# 1468) on :
 


Ley Druid, if you're talking about anti-sac. *within the RC church*, as both you and the pope mentioned, that's an *entirely* different kettle of fish than the way non-RC folks view the sacraments.

If you're talking about an RC matter, then why on earth all the fuss directed at the rest of us???


 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
Why do I not see anyone with the balls to accept a challenge to debate something?
 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
I don't like to call people stupid. It's not nice to make fun of the mentally retarded.

I am sorry if I have interrupted a game of "Let's make fun of Father Gregory". But as they say, payback is a bitch.

When I debated anti-sacramentalism outside the RCC, I was accused of bashing. Now that I want to debate it inside the RCC, that's another "kettle of fish" that some people just can't seem to stomach.

I'm still here discussing the OP topic with other rational, sensible, intelligent and interesting adults. Did I mention the fondness and respect that I have for the thinking and the ideas of many other shipmates?

But Scot, Wood, RuthW, golden_key you are not here. You couldn't cut it. I would like everybody reading this post to know that these people Scot, Wood, RuthW, golden_key would prefer to make light of Father Gregory than argue with me. I don't think they're capable.

Here's the good part. I'm waking up early tomorrow to fly over to Little Cayman Island (it was either that or a Columbus Day regatta in the Keys). That means you all have three days at least to come up with something thoughtful. I won't be thinking of you, but perhaps you could at least be thinking up something.

To give you some encouragement I'll quote you something inspiring from Luther

quote:

---

The papists, for the most part, are mere gross blockheads. Luther's Table-Talk CCCCXLII.

---

So given that you're all not papists, this should be easy. (Just remember how silly this is going to make Fr. Gregory look.)

Thank you most gracious hosts.

Now remember, the we're not going to derail the debate here. We're going to follow the OP. We are going to discuss how:
In the Roman Catholic Church, Anti-sacramentalism is a denial of the God-bearing character of creation.
 

---

Posted by golden_key (# 1468) on :
 
So...rather than actually listening to what we have to say, you're calling us out???

LD, as many of us have told you in many ways, on this thread and elsewhere, there are serious problems with your style of "debate". You kick. You chew. You ignore. You do not play nicely. Then you complain that no one wants to play.

And since we're not "papists", why should we be interested in debating an RC problem?
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
I'm still here discussing the OP topic with other rational, sensible, intelligent and interesting adults. Did I mention the fondness and respect that I have for the thinking and the ideas of many other shipmates?

But Scot, Wood, RuthW, golden_key you are not here. You couldn't cut it. I would like everybody reading this post to know that these people Scot, Wood, RuthW, golden_key would prefer to make light of Father Gregory than argue with me. I don't think they're capable.

---

quote:

---

Here's the good part. I'm waking up early tomorrow to fly over to Little Cayman Island (it was either that or a Columbus Day regatta in the Keys). That means you all have three days at least to come up with something thoughtful. I won't be thinking of you, but perhaps you could at least be thinking up something.

To give you some encouragement I'll quote you something inspiring from Luther

quote:

---

The papists, for the most part, are mere gross blockheads. Luther's Table-Talk CCCCXLII.

---

So given that you're all not papists, this should be easy. (Just remember how silly this is going to make Fr. Gregory look.)

Thank you most gracious hosts.

Now remember, the we're not going to derail the debate here. We're going to follow the OP. We are going to discuss how:
In the Roman Catholic Church, Anti-sacramentalism is a denial of the God-bearing character of creation.

---

quote:

---

It's not that Scot, Wood, golden_key and I aren't up to it. It's just that it's not worth it. (And Wood doesn't have time to post right now). You and Gregory refuse to believe what people who have spent a lot of time worshipping in churches that were born in the Protestant Reformation tell you about the theology of those churches.

---

Until you start showing that you're capable of dealing with people as (at least) your intellectual equals, of taking seriously what other people tell you about what they actually believe, and of holding a reasoned argument on sensible terms, you are ignored.

I'm now abandoning this intellectual trainwreck of a thread. Which I should have done ages ago. You'd have thought that after being here for three years, I'd have learnt my lesson.
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 
See. I'm still half-asleep.

That first paragraph actually should have said:

"I'm not the host of this board, but frankly, I think that it's fairly obvious that Ley Druid's crossed the line."
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
[HOST MODE]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
But Scot, Wood, RuthW, golden_key you are not here. You couldn't cut it. I would like everybody reading this post to know that these people Scot, Wood, RuthW, golden_key would prefer to make light of Father Gregory than argue with me. I don't think they're capable.

---

quote:

---

Thank you most gracious hosts.

---

quote:

---

Now remember, the we're not going to derail the debate here. We're going to follow the OP. We are going to discuss how:
In the Roman Catholic Church, Anti-sacramentalism is a denial of the God-bearing character of creation.

---

quote:

---

You and Gregory refuse to believe what people who have spent a lot of time worshipping in churches that were born in the Protestant Reformation tell you about the theology of those churches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
I am delighted to see that Professor Yaffle is an honorable man.
Alan Cresswell,
I feel I made a blunder early on this thread. I allowed myself to be baited by the request

quote:

---

you had better tell me which traditions you think are polluted with this Gnostic heresy. -- ken

---

I thought this person wanted to know what I thought.

---

quote:

---

Anti- sacramentalism does, it seems to me, indicate an uneasiness with seeing material things as vehicles of grace. I think we would honour the earth more if we PRACTISED the vision of its God-bearing characteristics in PARTICULAR AS WELL As universal ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Please remember that I was baptised in the Anglican Church, went to an Anglican Church School, was converted in an evangelical Anglican tradition, moved into Anglo-Catholicism, experienced charismatic renewal and was drawn to Orthodoxy through (from want of a better word) classical Anglicanism. In all that time I had extensive ecumenical contacts with Protestant Churches and in my hot rodding phase worshipped in a Pentecostal fellowship as well. Does that count as giving me an awareness of western and Protestant theology and spirituality?

---

quote:

---

The other is a niggle. It is a matter of common courtesy and it applies to one or two others here. There are two ways of addressing a priest in the Orthodox Church ....

either ... Father Gregory
or ... the unworthy priest Gregory (in full)

Please choose which one you prefer. I would be honoured if you used the second because it is true and it should present no crisis of Protestant conscience.

---

quote:

---

Now the nice bit.

---

quote:

---

I thoroughly enjoyed, affirmed and was inspired by your own appreciation of sacramentalism. I don't think, however, that being critical of negative positions is out of order as an positive statement. Anti-sacramentalism does, it seems to me, indicate an uneasiness with seeing material things as vehicles of grace. I think we would honour the earth more if we PRACTISED the vision of its God-bearing characteristics in PARTICULAR AS WELL As universal ways.

---

quote:

---

My point is simply that participating in a tradition that emphasizes the sacraments by no means prevents one from despising God's good creation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
I totally agree with this ....

quote:

---

My point is simply that participating in a tradition that emphasizes the sacraments by no means prevents one from despising God's good creation.

---

BUT ... I'm sorry but you cannot possibly know which Protestant traditions I have had proper exposure to and which I haven't.

---

quote:

---

In the US for example Episcopalianism is generally far more liturgical and sacramental than in the UK, (albeit more "liberal.") I have had first hand encounter with many Anglicans who believe that since being saved is the most important thing, creation theology is not at the forefront.

---

quote:

---

My exposure IN Pentecostalism showed me Protestant Christian traditions that emphasised personal subjective religious experience at the expense of social responsibility. No one in their right minds would say that ALL Anglicans or ALL Pentecostals were like this but I do maintain that a non-sacramental (which is effectively anti in my book) loses sight of creation.

---

quote:

---

Interestingly, Quakers who are very committed to creation theology do so now largely on an ethical basis only. Is that that because spirit and matter are incompatible? Same point really.

---

quote:

---

Since it might be considered rude to avoid all use of first names might you call me Revd. Hallam or simply Hallam? At least everyone would know whom you're talking to

---

quote:

---

(BTW ... do you apply the non use of Father to all clergy who are not your priests or is it just because I get on your nerves?)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Alright. It was presumptuous of me. From now on I'll call you by your surname or Sister Ruth. Which do you prefer?

---

quote:

---

If "things" themselves lose their sacred character and become merely instrumental to our actions then we can manipulate the arrangements (beer instad of wine etc) or even abandon them and somehow try to keep the actions ethically (Salvation Army). Moreover, if "things" lose their sacred quality don't we tend to revere the material realm less? It's a psychologically subtle but, I believe, quite powerful shift in how we relate to the world, the material world that is as transfigured by the spiritual ... a return to its natural Edenic state.

---

quote:

---

in my hot rodding phase worshipped in a Pentecostal fellowship as well.

---

Perhaps I have been given the gift of "discernment of spirits." I knew I was talking to a Pentecostal in Orthodox robing.

In all candor Revd. Hallam, it seems as though the time is ripe to step back and review your history of searching from one set viewpoint to another, each time convinced that now you have alighted on the exact one that you needed all along and that everyone needs. That's how I read your story. We all know something about that search and the drive for correctness and rightness along with a yearning for others to share the exact same viewpoint. Surely, this is the Utopia we all long for and the Heaven that most Christians believe in.

But it is not reality. Continuing your curt, defensive, and at times petulant posts runs the risk of making you into a caricature of yourself. People can't help but snicker. Especially when you resort to, "you know I am a Reverend." I imagine Jesus under questioning answering with, "Hey, that's 'Messiah' to you, bub."

My basic belief in the underlying goodness of people says that you have something much better inside you.

Somewhere.
 

---

Posted by PaulTH (# 320) on :
 
I want to come to Father Gregory's defence here. An ordained priest within certain traditions is traditionally referred to as Father, that has gone on for centuries and it's a matter of respect, even for members of churches which don't have that tradition, that he has the right to that title.

Also, Fr. Gregory is very passionate in his beliefs, which is an essential quality for a priest whose job it is, among other things to witness and teach the faith to others. I envy him his certitudes. I've been chasing Jesus since the age of 12(I'm now 48) and He remains an enigna to me yet. I hold fast to Him like Jacob when he wrestled with God, "I will not let you go unless you bless me."(Gen32.26)

Fr. Gregory is one of the most valuable contributors to this forum who comes in for some lampooning because of his total dedication to his church and its viewpoint. I've learned a lot from him over the two years I've been debating with him, and I'm very grateful to him for all his invaluable advice.
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
OK, I'll assume that I just caught Fr. Gregory at a bad moment and fault myself for making too close an association between him and others in my past and of having a bit too much fun while I was doing it.

My apologies Fr. Gregory.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear JimT

No need to apologise but if there was I would forgive you anyway. Forgiveness is more fun. I do owe you an explanation though (and perhaps Sister Ruth as well).

I am the little shit that God loves. I am his unworthy priest ... but I know that I am quick to anger, impatient and overcome often by my passions. The priesthood I hold (like yours) is not mine but Christ's. If I wasn't continually reminded of what a fraud I am in holding this office I would not be (relatively) safe in handling it. It is not because I want any honour ... far from it. There are times when I would rather return to the lay state and assume comfortable anonymous obscurity. I don't because I believe (for the time being) that God wants me here doing this thing. That's what it's like. Mostly I enjoy it. Other times I can only see a cross. But it is right to be here with that absurd title. A father I must be.

Dear Sister Ruth

It's pretty dangerous isn't it to say that the ethical thing is not enough. It's the cup of cold water not the fancy theology on the porcelain after all. However, I think that Christian ethical behaviour does depend on a Christian ethical heart and mind. Matters of faith and worship must be material to that (pun intended).

Dear Paul

Oooerr! I'm embarrassed but thanks anyway.
 

---

Posted by Jengie (# 273) on :
 
Dear Father Gregory

All your replies show you do not know what I am getting at.

Sorry.

Jengie
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Jengie

You may console yourself thinking that but I DO know what you're getting at. It's just not my perspective that's all. I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:

I am the little shit that God loves.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Well thank you Daisymay but I KNOW what I am. That doesn't change my knowledge of God's infinite love for me one little bit. It just makes it even more amazing!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by daisymay:
And the God-bearing aspect of your humanity? Your essence being the image of God?

God's love for you means God knows more truly than you who you are.

---

Oh, no, Fr. G--you're a *sacrament*!
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
Having just returned from a mini-vacation with my family, I was most surprised to find out that Ley Druid has such a low opinion of me. I've just spent the better part of an hour in a darkened room hugging my blankie and trying to stop the tears.

RuthW, thank you.

Ley Druid, despite your unwarranted, unannounced, unnecessary and unimaginitive abuse of me, I owe you thanks. Since I have no knowledge of what goes on in the Roman Catholic Church, your re-definition of the topic has given me a perfect excuse for never again wasting time on this God-forsaken thread.

Since I have no desire to disrupt the newly achieved ecumenical warm-fuzziness, I will now depart without any further ado.

scot
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Scot:
[QB]Having just returned from a mini-vacation with my family, I was most surprised to find out that Ley Druid has such a low opinion of me. I've just spent the better part of an hour in a darkened room hugging my blankie and trying to stop the tears.

RuthW, thank you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:

Suppose that I am a Christian who sees taking communion as a metaphysical act, not a physical one at all. While I am eating the bread and drinking the wine, I reflect very deeply on the thought that my soul needs food exactly as my body does. I think about how my soul needs to "feed upon" the words, the thoughts, the very life of Christ and assimilate it into my own soul. I can physically feel it happening in my soul as I feel it happening in my body. I come away regenerated and transformed spiritually.

Now I can see how you would take a position that says, "Oh but you would get so much more out of it if you could drop the metaphysics and believe that it is a physical process"

---

But if it is a physical process won't you be getting the benefit however you believe it to work?
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Ken,

The viewpoint I describe is for the sake of argument and discussion, but to answer your question, the viewpoint is that benefit can be derived from the physical analogy underscoring a metaphysical point that is brought very far forward into consciousness. Without the analogy, simply eating bread and wine becomes a purely physical act with no spiritual benefit (the eating and drinking "unworthily" that Paul refers to.

Jim
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear JimT

We don't disagree. The physical feeding on bread and wine is linked directly into the spiritual feeding and it is that of course that saves insofar as we receive Christ the Living Bread. Not for nothing do we call his sacrifice presented in the Eucharist "bloodless" or "unbloody." It's not my emotions BTW that get in the way. It's my sinfulness .... which reminds me Daisymay ... yes I am God-bearing like everyone else but insofar as I obscure that I still insist that the little shit part of me is loved by God just as much as the nice bits. Not that ke loves sin but he loves me as a sinner so that I might have the potential to become a saint. I am as far off that as anyone living; and that's not false humility either.
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
So Fr. Gregory, the title of this thread: is it an exaggeration?
 

---

Posted by Raspberry Rabbit (# 3080) on :
 
I've been celebrating at St George's in Montreal during their interregnum over the last five weeks and finally got a sunday off. My daughter, the Rabblet, is sorta 50/50 when it comes to church these days and so I took her along to a little Mennonite church on the Plateau which I'm quite fond of attending (occasionally) wherein there are heaps of young people her age - many of them from other countries working with the Mennonite Volunteer Service. The pastor there is an able preacher and the congregation sings a capella hymns in four part harmony. Given that it was Thanksgiving Sunday it was also 'communion sunday' - something they do, I gather, every month or so.

Are we limiting the set of 'anti-sacramentalist' churches to include, for example, the Salvatian Army with their regrettable negligence of this whole side of Christian existence? If so the five solid pages of posts in this thread are a regrettable overreaction. The mennonites with their big loaf of bread and little pottery shot glasses of Welches Grape Juice and their reading of 1st Corinthians 11:23ff - the whole schmoo - would certainly understand themselves in some sort of continuity with the earliest traditions and even an anglican priest joining them on the occasional sunday would not see them described by the title of this thread.

Does God show mercy to German anabaptists and is Christ present at their table?

just wondering

Raspberry Rabbit
Montreal, QC
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Sounds pretty Orthodox to me Raspberry Rabbit ... they're not azymites.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
And they are exactly the sort of people I was defending, fer cryin' out loud!

Ruth
the W stands for Warkentin - a fine old Mennonite name
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
... and I was attacking them? No, I am making a case for saying that anti-sacramentalism is not eco-friendly because it denies the God-bearing character of creation. It is not for me or anyone else to judge what is or isn't going on in other churchs' services. I am interested in what motivates people to be nervous about using "things" in services and who try and interiorise everything.
 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
Father Gregory,
It seems from the beginning some people have taken offense to your OP and have not liked the term "anti-sacramentalism". Why do you think this might be?
I have suggested their might be examples of anti-sacramentalism in the RCC. I suspect you might be able to provide examples of this tendency in the long and venerable history of the Orthodox (Leo III comes to mind and even these priests that want to ditch their robes and hats might be an example yahoo) Why have others so vigorously protested your use of this term?
Others have suggested that you might take offence to an OP along the lines of "Sacramentalism is a denial of the God-bearing character of ..." Would that offend you? Would you be offended by the suggestion that sacramentalism can be taken too far, leading to superstition or idolatry? Would that lead you to deny the existence of sacramentalism or the unfairness of people labelling you "Orthodox"?
Thank you for an enlightening debate.
--------------------------------------------
mas vale ponerse una vez colorado,
que ciento amarillo o descolorido
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
... and I was attacking them? No, I am making a case for saying that anti-sacramentalism is not eco-friendly because it denies the God-bearing character of creation. It is not for me or anyone else to judge what is or isn't going on in other churchs' services. I am interested in what motivates people to be nervous about using "things" in services and who try and interiorise everything.

---

quote:

---

quote:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
But Scot, Wood, RuthW, golden_key you are not here. You couldn't cut it. I would like everybody reading this post to know that these people Scot, Wood, RuthW, golden_key would prefer to make light of Father Gregory than argue with me. I don't think they're capable.

---

Now hold on a minute there. To say that individual shipmates can't "cut it" or are not capable of debating with you certainly comes under the Third Commandment - "Attack the issue, not the person". Experience of their contributions on these boards indicates to me that they are more than capable of arguing their ground.

---

quote:

---

And since we're not "papists", why should we be interested in debating an RC problem?

---

quote:

---

It's just that it's not worth it.

---

quote:

---

I'm now abandoning this intellectual trainwreck of a thread.

---

quote:

---

Since I have no knowledge of what goes on in the Roman Catholic Church, your re-definition of the topic has given me a perfect excuse for never again wasting time on this God-forsaken thread.

---

quote:

---

But perhaps you should take more care before you say why people are posting or not posting.

---

I apologize if my presumption has caused offense. I offered to discuss anti-sacramentalism in the RCC (because outside the RCC was offensive), where I believe antisacramentalism is no more a straw-man than anticlericalism, anticatholicism, or antisemitism. No one has to do anything in response to what I might say, but I fail to see how not debating something is debating.
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
Ley Druid, I can see that composing your response has consumed time which could have been spent crafting reasonable arguments. I repent of my part in this sordid affair and beg your forgiveness for the intrusion.

With reciprocal sincerity,

scot
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 

 

---

Posted by golden_key (# 1468) on :
 
Ley Druid--

You said:

I don't like to call people stupid. It's not nice to make fun of the mentally retarded.

and

But Scot, Wood, RuthW, golden_key you are not here. You couldn't cut it. I would like everybody reading this post to know that these people Scot, Wood, RuthW, golden_key would prefer to make light of Father Gregory than argue with me. I don't think they're capable.

I replied:

So...rather than actually listening to what we have to say, you're calling us out???

LD, as many of us have told you in many ways, on this thread and elsewhere, there are serious problems with your style of "debate". You kick. You chew. You ignore. You do not play nicely. Then you complain that no one wants to play.

And since we're not "papists", why should we be interested in debating an RC problem?

LD, the way you treat others is unacceptable. Calling people stupid, even in a convoluted but blatant way, is not good.

We have told you this over and over. We are not playing with you, or baiting you. We are quite serious.

I don't know whether you don't get it, or don't want to get it.

But get it.
 

---

Posted by Wood (# 7) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
but I fail to see how not debating something is debating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
Wow. 256 posts into the thread and

the Mennonites are declared to have an orthodox sacramental theology,

the straw man crumbles and

we clutch vainly for somebody who might actually be antisacramental. Sounds a bit like Senator McCarthy patting his breast pocket and saying

'I have a list......'

What a colossal waste of air.

Do we do this often?

Glad he didn't jump in earlier

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JimT:
Believe it or not, I have been thinking about this thread a great deal in the last three days. It occurred to me that a useful frame work for understanding the prior debate and potentially moving forward are the classic elements of induction and deduction.

Inductive arguments:

Fr. Gregory notices specific instances of reluctance on the part of Christians in Protestant denomination to accept a priest’s special anointing of physical objects as being objects imbued with Godliness for a Godly purpose. Since the objects and procedures are called “sacraments” the full belief in them is called “sacramentalism” and the reluctance to fully embrace them “anti-sacramentalism.” This general concept of “anti-sacramentalism” arising as it does from particulars, does not follow from logical necessity, as is the case with all inductive reasoning. Like all induction, the principle is more general than the specific observations from which it was constructed so it cannot follow from logical necessity. Having a tentative general principal called “anti-sacramentalism” Fr. Gregory attempts to succinctly characterize what properties this general principal has. It seems to him that the general principal is that anyone within a Protestant faith must not believe that physical objects ever have any capability to reflect the presence of God. He states his premise: “Anti-sacramentalism is the denial of the God-bearing character of creation.”

Ley Druid, in his original post, expands the general principal of “anti-sacramentalism” beyond its putative assertion of the impossibility of any element of creation allowing an encounter with God and adds one more pernicious characteristic (reserving the right to add more): he says that it suggests that some Godly encounters might involve something that does not exist. When asked for the specific from which this general principle is induced, he offers a quote from a Baptist minister saying that while the local Church is visible and has concrete existence, there is such a thing as a “universal Church” which is a conception of the mind.

Deductive arguments

Fr. Gregory deduces that if Protestantism has a general principal of denying the God-bearing character of creation, it can be deduced that Protestants will have less reverence for the environment. When compelling evidence is offered to the contrary he eventually backs off to “anti-sacramentalism at least threatens the environment” because he still holds to his original premise instead of rejecting it. Unfortunately, this is a hypothesis that cannot easily be debated because the “threat” he proposes is latent.

From what I can tell, Ley Druid never made any deductive arguments to test the tentative general principal. Instead, he rapidly expanded the general principal with additional quotes from Protestants, and then attempted to show that these additional pieces of evidence prove by deductive necessity that the general principal is proven. From there, it got ugly.

My take

The premise of this thread is an inductive assertion and can never be proven by logical necessity. It can be tested by hypothesis and deduction and so far it has failed. Therefore, it should be rejected or modified.

---

quote:

---

God's plan is sacramental, that is, he makes himself present in a finite figure such as the humanity of Jesus or the sacramental signs of the Church.

---

For Catholics, to reject the necessity or efficacy of those sacramental signs is to deny the God-bearing character of creation (the way he makes himself present in a finite figure). I'm not judging what anybody else is doing, but I don't think their arguments logically compel me to abandon the premise.
 

---

Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
If an iconoclast smashed some object or other of idolatory (got to be in the mind of an iconoclast here ) and then carefully recycled the remains, or set up a community project helping the makers of said object to re-establish themselves in a profitable, green, enterprise, then they would be exemplars of how to treat creation.

Any artists want to help decorate the play-house?
 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
Interesting post. I noticed that even if there were people who wanted to venerate the object, the iconoclast could destroy it and remain an exemplar of how to treat creation. Once destroyed, people cannot venerate the object. If people who want to venerate objects need not be considered, then I am certainly wrong about the OP. I was unaware of this. If no one wants to venerate the object, then the “iconoclast” is just destroying an object which no one holds especially sacred and that is more a vandal than an iconoclast. We all destroy things every day. We are not all iconoclasts.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
A different tack to try and break through various impasses.

In certain traditions, holiness is an attribute only of persons generally and God pre-eminently by virtue of their moral character.

In other traditions, holiness is an attribute, additionally, that can be predicated of things by virtue of their consecration.

In the first holiness is confined to personalist salvation terms. In latter holiness embraces the whole created order, including human, personal and moral.

I propose these distinctions in order to reveal how care for the environment (creation WITHIN salvation) is more likely to emerge within the more broadly defined materialist tradition of holiness.

The next step is to consider the evidence. Is it actually true. Some say "yeah", some say "nay." Maybe we should do some research rather than rely on anecdotals.
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Ley Druid,

You have interested me in furthering my study of formal logic so I looked up “modus tollens” and “modus ponens” in order to understand your last post. I had never heard of them.

With respect to modus tollens, I think you picked up that people were saying to you “Someone could suggest that X doesn't apply to them so they do not do Y.” Translating, “Someone could suggest that Protesantism does not involve anti-sacramentalism so it does not automatically follow that it denies the God-bearing character of creation” or “I hope this is not some attack on Protestants because in the first place, we are not anti-sacramental.” You were right in your last post when you said that it simply fails to disprove the original premise, but you were wrong when at one point you said that all of people's posts in this direction (denial of anti-sacramentalism in Protestantism) validate the premise.

With respect to modus ponens, that was an argument that you more or less dared other people to put forward, but as far as I can tell no one took you up on it. You offered to the other side that if they could show you that someone who intentionally desecrates sacramental objects is not an anti-sacramentalist you would be happy to then concede that the original premise should be rejected. I will concede that your logic was not flawed; but since no one took you up on it (and I certainly don’t intend to) I won’t discuss it further.

With respect to anti-environmental Russians, I would assert that it is logical to assume that sacramentalism is the opposite of anti-sacramentalism, and that sacramentalism should prevent disrespect for the environment. Father Gregory said, “Anti-sacramentalism has no room for a doctrine of creation within the salvation schema. We are paying for that narrowness today with our privatised world-injurious rapaciousness.” In effect, anti-sacramentalism leads to rapaciousness via disrespect for creation. Therefore, sacramentalism should prevent rapaciousness via respect for creation. It seems that you are comfortable with the notion that sacramentalists can be anti-environmental; that the sacraments (which we would assume affirm the God-bearing character of creation instead of deny it) do nothing to foster respect and stewardship for creation? I find this puzzling and a little disturbing, even as a non-Christian humanist.

In the end, I think I do understand. While Fr. Gregory might have been trying to make a broad statement, you are making a narrower one that is in sympathy with him. Your narrower and better defined position is “For Catholics, to reject the necessity or efficacy of those sacramental signs is to deny the God-bearing character of creation (the way he makes himself present in a finite figure).” Your parenthetical clause is crucial because the “God-bearing character of creation” is vague to non-Catholics. I didn't really know what it meant.

I can see how Catholics, holding this position, would worry that someone who does not fully embrace it might have a limited perspective on what God can do and is willing to do for Man. At the same time, having been raised Protestant, I can see a different (but not opposite) angle. That is, “For Protestants, to insist upon the necessity and efficacy of sacramental signs (the ability for priests to invoke God’s presence in a finite figure) is to risk a superstitious belief that priests may create idols, in which the power of God is held for human benefit.” Can you see this?

Thanks, Ley Druid.

Jim
 

---

Posted by golden_key (# 1468) on :
 
Ley Druid--

I missed posting on the Hell thread, and accept your apology.
 

---

Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
JimT,
You really impress me. You offer insightful analysis and useful suggestions.
You have given me great faith in SOF.

I WAS silly to suggest that something that doesn't deny the premise validates it.

This thread has taught me the weakness of inductive arguments especially when not applied to oneself, but to the "other". I will stick to criticizing my own anti-environmentalism.

I truly do apologize for having attacked others. I don't apologize for being pig-headed and sticking with this thread. It's too easy to say every opinion is equally valid. Thanks again JimT for suggesting a way not to.

As to your concerns for superstition and idolatry I would like to say two things. 1. I agree that this concern is valid and does not invalidate the OP. 2. Just to give you a warm fuzzy feeling, I would like to suggest that the Pope himself would agree with you. In the document I quoted he suggests

quote:

---

In recent decades some people, in reaction to an excessive sacramentalism, have put the primary, if not the exclusive, emphasis on the word.

---

He's suggesting that anti-sacramentalism is often a response to just the idolatrous superstitious sacramentalism that you are worried about.
 

---

Posted by Fr. Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I won't be able to post for a week or so. I look forward to any comments in the meantime folks might have about holiness, things, persons and the divine. Tata for now.
 

---

Posted by linzc (# 2914) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
In certain traditions, holiness is an attribute only of persons generally and God pre-eminently by virtue of their moral character.

In other traditions, holiness is an attribute, additionally, that can be predicated of things by virtue of their consecration.

In the first holiness is confined to personalist salvation terms. In latter holiness embraces the whole created order, including human, personal and moral.

I propose these distinctions in order to reveal how care for the environment (creation WITHIN salvation) is more likely to emerge within the more broadly defined materialist tradition of holiness.

---

Even within the terms of your argument, I do not see how you can make the logical leap from "some things can be holy by virtue of their consecration" to "holiness embraces the whole created order" (emphasis mine in both cases). ISTM that the most your argument above can suggest is that sacramentalists are more likely to care for consecrated things, which is no doubt true but says very little about a more general care for the environment.

Furthermore I think that your argument is a straw man at least in terms of thoughtful Protestants. That is, personally I am quite happy to speak of things other than persons as 'holy', meaning set apart (for some godly purpose). In the case of persons, there is an added moral dimension in that we are set apart to righteousness (which is of course the particular godly purpose wrt agents).
 

---

Posted by JimT (# 142) on :
 
Ley Druid, thanks a bunch, buddy. It's nice to have had a positive effect since I've been such a negative one in the past. It is gratifying to have had such a meaningful exchange of deeply-held beliefs and to have played a role in healing deep wounds. Stay cool brother.
 

---

Posted by Stowaway (# 139) on :
 
Interesting discussion.

It seems to me that the initial protestant rejection of sacramentalism had three roots.

1) Political - Sacramentalism reinforced the power of the church, because only priests of the church were able to consecrate the elements. It was in the interest of protestant leaders to make wholesale changes in the way people worshipped in order to wipe out the power of the priests.

2) Idolatry - The veneration of statues and relics was seen as idolatry and I think that it sometimes was and is.

3) Biblical authority - It is really impossible to find the sacramental theology of the Eucharist, for instance, in the Bible alone.

This resulted in the stripping away of mystery and ritual again and again. Finally, when the Quakers began, George Fox was teaching the same message. "You don't need a priest as mediator because Christ is the mediator". This, by the way is a tremendous strength of protestantism - the confidence to approach God directly.

Did that lead to denial of the God bearing character of creation? Yes, I think that it often did. In some ways the effect was more complex than that. The concentration on the Word of God had more of an effect in this respect. Concentration on words can lead to the denial of intuition, emotion and aesthetics. In some senses, the charismatic movement and the resurgence in Celtic spirituality have helped to reintegrate those aspects.

Along with the stripping away of ritual always came the reassertion of ritual. We are creatures that require ritual, so that even (or especially!)Pentecostals and Baptists have their own rituals. Even the quiet time act of opening up the Bible on the table is a personal ritual, and many protestants have special places for their quiet times.

In my church (a charismatic fellowship)we have been using silence, candles, anointing oil, banners, ambient music, art etc. We hold baptism services/barbecues/canoing on Loch Lomond. We see it more as "embodying" our worship, and the effect has been profound. However, our theology is more that of us building an appropriate earthly altar and God adding the divine fire to the altar.

There is a difference, I think, in the way that the rituals are believed to have been initiated. I think that traditional sacramentalist churches see their sacraments as ordained by God through the authority of church tradition. We are building rituals using intuition, seeking to be guided by God, by aesthetics, by theology and psychology. Maybe that is how the first rituals began. If so, the difference would be in our understanding of appropriateness. I do not believe that what we are doing now can be repeated in ten years time with the same effect.
 

---

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
In certain traditions, holiness is an attribute only of persons generally and God pre-eminently by virtue of their moral character.

In other traditions, holiness is an attribute, additionally, that can be predicated of things by virtue of their consecration.

In the first holiness is confined to personalist salvation terms. In latter holiness embraces the whole created order, including human, personal and moral.

I propose these distinctions in order to reveal how care for the environment (creation WITHIN salvation) is more likely to emerge within the more broadly defined materialist tradition of holiness.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ley Druid:
RuthW,
Take your time.
Stowaway made me think, suppose we had two OP's:

Holiness comes from the grace of God.

The Pope can consecrate something holy.

Do people think these would receive equal criticism? If not, why not?

PS Once you've thought about a good answer for these questions, then consider that the latter OP DOES NOT suggest that the Pope could do anything without the grace of God. Does that change your answer?

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0