Ship of Fools: Who else has seven sacraments?

Thread: Who else has seven sacraments? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=022538

Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :

A friend asked me if there is any church other than Roman Catholicism which has seven sacraments. I couldn't think of any.

Does anyone know of such a church?

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

There are more churches who have seven sacraments :The Orthodox Churches and the Old-Catholics.
Furthermore, the Anglo-Catholics practise the seven sacraments as well.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

The Episcopal/Anglican Church does.

(Some Episcopalians think we have eight -- the Coffee Hour is sometimes known as the Eighth Sacrament!)

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
The Coffee Hour is sometimes known as the Eighth Sacrament!

Some Baptists - who regard Communion and Baptism as "ordinances" - might regard Coffee Hour as the only Sacrament. (Although I've never known it to last a whole hour!)

But of course they would be wrong: Taking Up The Offering is another, as (in some contexts) is Giving The Notices.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
the Anglo-Catholics practise the seven sacraments as well.

We do - though the 39 Articles say there are two 'instituted by Christ'. Strange that the articles don't extend this the authority of scripture beyond Jesus - arguably, Penance and Unction are in James, confirmation and ordination are in Acts.

Marriage is mentioned often.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

I've never been able to understand why some Anglicans are keen to deny that we have seven sacraments. Everybody gives priority to the main two, baptism and the eucharist, of course. But I don't know any Anglican who would prevent anyone celebrating or receiving the others: confirmation is part of the BCP and Anglican tradition; marriage is regarded as very important maybe especially by those evangelicals who would deny it is a sacrament; ordination is surely seen as more than just a legal commissioning; anointing is very widely, if not universally, practised; the sacrament of reconciliation/ confession may be valued more by anglo-catholics than others but I would think any priest who refused to hear a confession would be censured by his/her bishop.

So if everybody is happy to use all seven, why would they object to calling them sacraments? If they're not sacraments, what are they?

Pete173 and others: any answers?

Posted by Bran Stark (# 15252) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
So if everybody is happy to use all seven, why would they object to calling them sacraments? If they're not sacraments, what are they?

Presumably they are "other rites and ceremonies", as the BCP title page puts it.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Presumably. But that doesn't answer the question, why not call them sacraments?

Posted by Sacred London (# 15220) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
So if everybody is happy to use all seven, why would they object to calling them sacraments? If they're not sacraments, what are they?

According to Article 25 "There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord [and] five commonly called Sacraments"

[deleted multiple duplicate posts]

[ 22. April 2012, 18:35: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by St.Silas the carter (# 12867) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
The Episcopal/Anglican Church does.

(Some Episcopalians think we have eight -- the Coffee Hour is sometimes known as the Eighth Sacrament!)

That's what the pastor at my RC parish calls it as well!

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

The Methodist Church in Britain recognises two sacraments (baptism and the Eucharist) as "of divine appointment and perpetual obligation." We have authorised liturgies for all those rites which might be called sacraments. I certainly think of them as being sacramental in character but we're unlikely to categorise them formally as sacraments any time soon.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
There are more churches who have seven sacraments: The Orthodox Churches...

It isn't quite accurate to say that the Orthodox churches have seven sacraments, not because we don't recognise as Sacraments, or Mysteries, those seven numbered by Thomas Aquinas and listed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church but rather because it is not our tradition to specify a number of mysteries. Some ancient church writers listed three, others other numbers, and the lists did not always include the same ones. I'm told that there is a modern trend in some Orthodox quarters of stating that we have seven, and that this stems from Latin influence on the Greek church under the Ottoman yoke, when there was a time of Greek priests being trained in Roman Catholic seminaries out of necessity. Perhaps it is the fruit of this that you have encountered.

In actuality, monastic tonsure and funeral rites have long been included in lists of the mysteries, as well as some other rites, and they are still considered sacramental in Orthodox circles.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:

So if everybody is happy to use all seven, why would they object to calling them sacraments? If they're not sacraments, what are they?

Probably because there are certain words that are seen by Christians lower down the candle as 'carrying connotations'. The word 'sacrament' seems to be disliked by the same people who use the word 'pilgrimage' and the word 'Mass'.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I've never been able to understand why some Anglicans are keen to deny that we have seven sacraments. Everybody gives priority to the main two, baptism and the eucharist, of course. But I don't know any Anglican who would prevent anyone celebrating or receiving the others: confirmation is part of the BCP and Anglican tradition; marriage is regarded as very important maybe especially by those evangelicals who would deny it is a sacrament; ordination is surely seen as more than just a legal commissioning; anointing is very widely, if not universally, practised; the sacrament of reconciliation/ confession may be valued more by anglo-catholics than others but I would think any priest who refused to hear a confession would be censured by his/her bishop.

So if everybody is happy to use all seven, why would they object to calling them sacraments? If they're not sacraments, what are they?

Pete173 and others: any answers?

The difficulty lies in the definition of sacrament used during the Reformation which insisted on direct institution by Christ. My old fashioned Evangelical friends do not deny that that Marriage etc., are outward signs of inward spiritual grace, but they insist on direct institution by Christ. For them they are sacramental (i.e. have like character with the sacraments) rather than actual full-paid up sacraments.

On my better days I refer to "seven sacraments - of which two dominical, and the other five ecclesiastical." In more Lutheran moods, it is two, whilst not denying the sacramental character of marriage, holy unction, etc..

PD
High Church Protestant

[ 22. April 2012, 20:58: Message edited by: PD ]

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

I've heard it said that TEC has 7 sacraments: 2 major, 5 minor.

The two major (Baptism and Holy Communion) were directly instituted by Jesus Christ in his ministry. The five minor (Confession, Marriage, Ordination, Confirmation, and Anointing of the Sick) were instituted by his disciples in the Early Church and are continued to this day.

There are plenty of jokes about other really minor sacraments, usually around coffee...

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

I think that this discussion speaks to the fact that despite attempts--especially in recent decades--to arrive at sacramental (and other theological) definitions that are acceptable to Anglicans of every stripe, the simple (and to some, quite obvious) reality is that not all Anglicans hold the same faith, period.

Please be assured that the above statement is made respectfully, and is not intended to cause offense of any sort or provoke controversy. However, one has only to peruse the above--to say nothing of sources that are of a weighty nature--to see that there are both Catholic and Protestant faiths living side-by-side within Anglicanism (as well as a good deal in between). In many, if not most, instances, I would say that these definitions and distinctions regarding the most basic tenets of the faith, the sacraments themselves, go so far as to be mutually exclusive. [Frown]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:
My old fashioned Evangelical friends do not deny that that Marriage etc., are outward signs of inward spiritual grace, but they insist on direct institution by Christ.

What about Matthew 19.5-6?

And if you are talking about direct institution, what about washing of feet? Baptism has only one reference, at the end of Matthew: I'm sure some scholars will question if that is historical.

[PS, Ceremoniar: how does what you call something ('sacrament' or 'sacramental') amount to a difference of faith? We're only quibbling about definitions here, not about the reality.

[ 22. April 2012, 21:26: Message edited by: Angloid ]

Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PD:

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
I've never been able to understand why some Anglicans are keen to deny that we have seven sacraments. Everybody gives priority to the main two, baptism and the eucharist, of course. But I don't know any Anglican who would prevent anyone celebrating or receiving the others: confirmation is part of the BCP and Anglican tradition; marriage is regarded as very important maybe especially by those evangelicals who would deny it is a sacrament; ordination is surely seen as more than just a legal commissioning; anointing is very widely, if not universally, practised; the sacrament of reconciliation/ confession may be valued more by anglo-catholics than others but I would think any priest who refused to hear a confession would be censured by his/her bishop.

So if everybody is happy to use all seven, why would they object to calling them sacraments? If they're not sacraments, what are they?

Pete173 and others: any answers?
The difficulty lies in the definition of sacrament used during the Reformation which insisted on direct institution by Christ. My old fashioned Evangelical friends do not deny that that Marriage etc., are outward signs of inward spiritual grace, but they insist on direct institution by Christ. For them they are sacramental (i.e. have like character with the sacraments) rather than actual full-paid up sacraments.

On my better days I refer to "seven sacraments - of which two dominical, and the other five ecclesiastical." In more Lutheran moods, it is two, whilst not denying the sacramental character of marriage, holy unction, etc..

PD
High Church Protestant

Didn't Luther consider Absolution to be a true sacrament of the Gospel, hence effectively making three? I don't know what the Augsburg Confession says about that, and Luther of course floated all sorts of ideas that Melancthon and the other systematisers did not endorse.

Beyond that, for all intents and purposes Lutherans have basically treated Confirmation as a sacrament.

Posted by jordan32404 (# 15833) on :

The five other rites are not sacraments, according to the Articles of Religion, because they do not meet the requirement of a sacrament laid out in the AOR:

quote:
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

But note, it says 'not to be counted as Sacraments of the Gospel': they are 'commonly called' sacraments.

It's all quibbling, like angels on a pinhead, anyway!

Posted by PataLeBon (# 5452) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
What about Matthew 19.5-6?

And if you are talking about direct institution, what about washing of feet? Baptism has only one reference, at the end of Matthew: I'm sure some scholars will question if that is historical.

That's where it gets gray for me, and I err on the side of sacrament. Jesus did forgive sins, but didn't ask for a retelling of them. Jesus did go to a wedding, but didn't perform one or be a part of one. Jesus did call disciples, but didn't lay his hands on them and bless them. Jesus did heal the sick, but didn't anoint them with oil. (Spit on the other hand...)

Jesus did directly institute the Eucharist, and was baptized by John in the Jordan River.

Foot washing didn't seem to get very far, for some reason...

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
But note, it says 'not to be counted as Sacraments of the Gospel': they are 'commonly called' sacraments.

It's all quibbling, like angels on a pinhead, anyway!

Hardly. One of the primary differences between the Catholic and Protestant faiths is the presence and nature of the sacraments. It is basic--not only their number, but of what their ontological nature consists. That is far more than quibbling; it is the building blocks of each, as it were. [Biased]

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

The inner nature and substance of what a sacrament is to me is really a more important question than how many there are. Even more importantly is the interrelated nature of the mysterion on each other as the basis of the worshipping community. It is all linked together, and none can be removed or ignored without the rest breaking down. Apostolic charism exists to provide us with the channels of grace and is passed and made present through ordination. The eucharist cannot exist without this or without the blessing of the bishop. The worshipping community cannot exist without baptism and chrismation as an entrance in to it. Membership in the community cannot be maintained without confession and absolution. The eucharist cannot be taken apart from baptism, chrismation and confession. These are just a few examples but represent to me how the various channels of grace all rely on each other.

Seven is a generally accepted number, but is no where dogmatically defined.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jordan32404:
The five other rites are not sacraments, according to the Articles of Religion, because they do not meet the requirement of a sacrament laid out in the AOR:

quote:
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

Jordan, I disagree; this passage seems to me like a very early example of the confection of Anglican fudge.

Posted by SeraphimSarov (# 4335) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
Presumably. But that doesn't answer the question, why not call them sacraments?

Because Cranmer et al, got it wrong : [Biased]

Posted by kiwimacahau (# 12142) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
There are more churches who have seven sacraments :The Orthodox Churches and the Old-Catholics.
Furthermore, the Anglo-Catholics practise the seven sacraments as well.

Indeed we Old Catholics do. Interestingly there are some churches which have eight, among them are the LDS and Community of Christ. The eighth being a "patriarchal blessing" or the CoC equivalent.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by jordan32404:
The five other rites are not sacraments, according to the Articles of Religion, because they do not meet the requirement of a sacrament laid out in the AOR:

quote:
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.
Jordan, I disagree; this passage seems to me like a very early example of the confection of Anglican fudge.

I can never make my mind up weather this sacrament denies that the five 'lesser' sacraments are sacraments, or whether it simply says 'under the strict definition we are now using, they are not sacraments.'

The snag is the Catechism (the old one; not the Offices of Instruction) say pretty without further qualification that a sacrament is an outward sign of an inward spiritual grace. OK, the catechism then goes on to say that there are two, however, on the definition given it is bloody near impossible to deny that the lesser five are sacraments.

I detect a certain amount of fence sitting. I happiest saying that the Anglicans have always asserted that there are two 'general necessary to salvation' and leaving the rest to tradition whilst pointing out that since about 1870 there has been an increasing tendancy to recognise the other five as sacraments. I have never really gotten past the 2 + 5 = 7 line taken by confirmation classes in the Sunnyside of Central parish I grew up in. That is my default unless someone has me really riled up in one direction or the other.

PD

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

I've long suspected that part of the problem has been that since the Reformation, and possibly in the later Middle Ages, the word 'sacrament' has been a buzz word onto which extra freight has been loaded which it hasn't really got the springs to carry. The different sides in the debate have defined the word differently and then accused the other side of being wrong, because the other's theology does not comply with the definition they have given to the word.

Let me ask two different questions. I don't know the answer to either:

1. Is the the phrase "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace", an exclusively CofE understanding or is it, at least in part, compatible with how other ecclesial communities understand a Sacrament?

2. How much does it actually matter whether one calls a rite a Sacrament or not? How much ontological difference does it make? Do we really believe it becomes a greater or lesser sign of an inward and spiritual grace or has more or less potential to transmit God's blessing depending on what we call it?

(and note I'm deliberately not saying here 'depending on who does it'. That's a quite different issue)

Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :

It makes a difference if we use the word "sacrament" to imply a whole load of RC philosophical baggage.

I've heard a lecture on marriage by an Anglo-Catholic ethicist which basically worked exactly like that. Marriage is a sacrament - hence this, this, this and this.

I'm an evangelical Anglican, and I don't have a problem with saying that all sorts of things are outward and visible signs of inward grace - preaching, private devotional times, anointing with oil, going for walks in the countryside, and so on.

If you want to call them "sacraments" that's fine by me though I don't find the language particularly helpful unless you mean something concrete by it, and if you mean something concrete by it we might find ourselves disagreeing about what that is.

Posted by Swick (# 8773) on :

When a fried of mine was in an Episcopalian seminary, his professors would say that Anglicans have "at least two" sacraments, and that baptism and the Holy Eucharist are necessary for all Christians, while the other five aren't.

The US 1979 BCP fudges the issue by calling the Baptism and Eucharist "sacraments," and other other five "sacramental rites evolved in the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit."
(page 860), which allows high church types to claim 7 and low church types 2.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I'd be very interested in an answer to Enoch's question 1.

Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
1. Is the the phrase "an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace", an exclusively CofE understanding or is it, at least in part, compatible with how other ecclesial communities understand a Sacrament?

It is, I believe, an increasingly common explanation for Baptism in United Methodist circles. I've also heard Baptists (in particular, Southern Baptists) use the phrase as well.

Usually in Methodist circles, however, we use the term "means of grace", which was something that Wesley coined. (Or stole... not sure which.) While I find a nuanced difference between the two terms, many people seem to think they are synonymous -- and maybe they are; I certainly don't hold the market on correct definitions.

The UMC defines the Eucharist and Baptism to be the two sacraments, so as long as I am a Methodist I will admit to those two. The other five I agree are sacramental, and I have no problem with them being full-fledged sacraments.

Posted by Padre Joshua (# 13100) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Padre Joshua:
Usually in Methodist circles, however, we use the term "means of grace", which was something that Wesley coined. (Or stole... not sure which.)

Erm, I have been reminded that "means of grace" did not originate with Wesley.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Very little originated with Wesley - he borrowed things from all over the place!

Posted by windsofchange (# 13000) on :

Since Jesus isn't recorded as having baptised anyone Himself - only being baptised - wouldn't it be more proper to say that Baptism was instituted by John the Baptist?

Leaving only one sacrament - the Eucharist - directly instituted by Himself.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Well that all depends how you read John 3:22... But more straightforwardly, we wouldn't usually see John's baptism as being sacramental baptism but as foreshadowing it. Matthew 28 would normally be seen as Christ's institution of the Church's sacrament of baptism I would have thought.

[ 23. April 2012, 19:36: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
Matthew 28 would normally be seen as Christ's institution of the Church's sacrament of baptism I would have thought.

And John 20.23 for the Sacrament of Reconciliation/Sacrament of Penance/Confession?

(I don't think that needs to be taken literally, as though the Risen Lord was thinking of large, paneled confession boxes. But it is the text that was explained to me when I was first prepared for confession - and if only confession was made to be a natural and unselfconscious thing now.)

[Don't say I never do anything for you... fixed link]

[ 23. April 2012, 20:54: Message edited by: seasick ]

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

I've certainly heard that cited in that way before. We read that passage as the gospel at the ordination of presbyters.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

And don't bother clicking on the link in my last post.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jordan32404:
The five other rites are not sacraments, according to the Articles of Religion, because they do not meet the requirement of a sacrament laid out in the AOR:

quote:
Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures, but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism, and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God.

Yes, I've always understood that "commonly called sacraments" to basically mean, "some people {cough, cough} call them sacraments, but they're really not."

However, at least in the Episcopal Church, the Articles are mostly treated as a historical document of historical interest, and not really all that binding. (Otherwise, e.g., we wouldn't reserve the Sacrament in tabernacles and ambries where people could reverence/pray with it - we'd just store it in the sacristy and bring it out at services where it might be used.)

I think it's fair to say Anglicans generally sort of have 7 Sacraments, although personally, I'm not keen on numbering them. There seems to me to be a continuum running from sacramental to Sacrament, and numbering Sacraments seems to fence them off from everything else - which no church really intends to do.

The one that confuses me, though, is Confirmation. I can't quite wrap my head around what's sacramental about it in any unique way (beyond receiving a blessing from a bishop, which happens on many occasions). To my mind, it stems from a one-time divorce of chrismation from baptism. (Having been baptized in the Assemblies of God, I have never been chrismated OR confirmed; I was however received into the Episcopal Church by the laying on of hands of a bishop, which ISTM might be considered Confirmation.)

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by windsofchange:
Since Jesus isn't recorded as having baptised anyone Himself - only being baptised - wouldn't it be more proper to say that Baptism was instituted by John the Baptist?

Leaving only one sacrament - the Eucharist - directly instituted by Himself.

John's baptism was really more of a mikvah; a ritual bathing which could occur for various reasons, among them conversion to Judaism and--wait for it!--the beginning of a priestly ministry (relevant to Jesus in light of the arguments made in the Epistle to the Hebrews, I'd think).

[ 23. April 2012, 20:58: Message edited by: Fr Weber ]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

The one that confuses me, though, is Confirmation. I can't quite wrap my head around what's sacramental about it in any unique way (beyond receiving a blessing from a bishop, which happens on many occasions). To my mind, it stems from a one-time divorce of chrismation from baptism. (Having been baptized in the Assemblies of God, I have never been chrismated OR confirmed; I was however received into the Episcopal Church by the laying on of hands of a bishop, which ISTM might be considered Confirmation.)

I'd think that unless the bishop intended for it to be Confirmation and pronounced the verbal formula of which the sacrament partially consists, it wouldn't have been.

The grace given in Confirmation relates to the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost : wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, piety, knowledge, and fear of the Lord. Obviously I'd never say that these virtues are closed to you if you're not confirmed, but they're what Confirmation is intended to impart.

I've always read "commonly called sacraments" as a weasel phrase; someone more inclined to be Reformed will read it as "but they're not" and someone more inclined to be Catholic will read it as "they are sacraments, but of a lesser importance than the dominical ones".

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I'd be very interested in an answer to Enoch's question 1.

I think that description would fall somewhat short in matching the Orthodox view, though I am not an expert. The sacraments are certainly visible expressions of inner channels of grace, but they are changed outwardly as well. That is why mysterion is a good word to use, I don't know that you can exactly describe what they become. What's the eucharist? Well, it's the Eucharist. There's no real category you can put it in.

The mysterion become different than they were before, and the things with an outward visible presence are no longer regarded as they were before. Once consecrated, the bread and wine cannot be treated or regarded as they were before. The same can hold true for things not strictly regarded as sacraments, but which have recognizably been suffused with grace. Icons, relics, water, etc.

Posted by scribbler (# 12268) on :

The churches of the Anglican Continuum in the U.S. who subscribe to the Affirmation of St. Louis--and this includes +PD's jurisdiction the UECNA, whether he likes or not--explicitly recognize the seven sacraments.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

The one that confuses me, though, is Confirmation. I can't quite wrap my head around what's sacramental about it in any unique way (beyond receiving a blessing from a bishop, which happens on many occasions). To my mind, it stems from a one-time divorce of chrismation from baptism. (Having been baptized in the Assemblies of God, I have never been chrismated OR confirmed; I was however received into the Episcopal Church by the laying on of hands of a bishop, which ISTM might be considered Confirmation.)
I'd think that unless the bishop intended for it to be Confirmation and pronounced the verbal formula of which the sacrament partially consists, it wouldn't have been.

The grace given in Confirmation relates to the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost : wisdom, understanding, counsel, fortitude, piety, knowledge, and fear of the Lord. Obviously I'd never say that these virtues are closed to you if you're not confirmed, but they're what Confirmation is intended to impart.

Thanks for explaining the bit about the seven gifts; I guess it makes sense to separate those at least formally from baptism, as in an ideal situation, a baptized child grows in grace (as our Lord did) and becomes ready to receive those gifts.

And I actually agree about the reception not being confirmation. Although just as I'm pretty sure I received the Holy Spirit without chrism, I'm also pretty sure I've received the seven gifts.

The way I like to think of all of this is that the Sacraments impart grace, but "the wind blows where it will" and God is not constrained by the Sacraments. God is free to act outside of them, but has graciously given them to us as objective means of grace.

And you can't make an individual experience the norm.

It just would seem odd to me to seek confirmation now. I am called to the laity, so the question of having to check off that box on the way to ordination won't ever come up.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
The sacraments are certainly visible expressions of inner channels of grace, but they are changed outwardly as well. That is why mysterion is a good word to use, I don't know that you can exactly describe what they become. What's the eucharist? Well, it's the Eucharist. There's no real category you can put it in.

The mysterion become different than they were before, and the things with an outward visible presence are no longer regarded as they were before. Once consecrated, the bread and wine cannot be treated or regarded as they were before. The same can hold true for things not strictly regarded as sacraments, but which have recognizably been suffused with grace. Icons, relics, water, etc.

All of this is so beautifully put. And if it's true that the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist can no longer be regarded as they were before, it's also true of us who receive it, having been baptized. Thus (I say as someone who spends a lot of time in the sacristy) the way we handle or behave toward consecrated elements and other sacramentals (like icons) trains us in how to treat each other.

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

Article XXV Of the Sacraments, part of which was quoted by churchgeek, is just another example of how the Protestant reformers reinvented the wheel of Christianity, which had rolled along for a millenium and a half without their new insights. The Seven Sacraments can all be inferred from Scripture, and are part of the history on the Undivided Church.

This along with Article XVII Of Predestination and Election, which supports Calvinist principles, reminds me of how much distaste of have for the Articles of Religion.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Article XXV Of the Sacraments, part of which was quoted by churchgeek, is just another example of how the Protestant reformers reinvented the wheel of Christianity...

But look at what experienced teachers they had.

Posted by Utrecht Catholic (# 14285) on :

As an Old-Catholic, I believe in the Seven Sacraments.This has always been the Faith of the Undivided Church.
Do the current Anglicans still believe in the 39 Articles ?
The US Episcopalians/Anglicans regard them as
an Historical Document.

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:
As an Old-Catholic, I believe in the Seven Sacraments.This has always been the Faith of the Undivided Church.

As I mentioned above, this isn't entirely accurate. Yes, the seven sacraments that are listed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church have always been numbered among the sacraments but the concept of "The Seven Sacraments" was never the Faith of the Undivided Church. As I understand it, the numbering of the sacraments at seven to the exclusion of the others is a local development in the west, and a fairly late one at that, dating not long (if at all) before Thomas Aquinas.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I agree with what Michael has just said..before the 12th century the word 'sacramentum' had a wider meaning than it has now.Since the 12th century the seven sacraments have been considered as 'instrumental causes'of grace in which God works unfailingly.It is from this time that we have the definition of 'an outward sign instituted by Christ to give grace'.

The term 'sacramentum' goes back to Tertullian who used this word to translate the Greek 'mysterion' Augustine said that a sacrament is a 'visible word'composed of word and material element.

Before the 12th century there was less difference between what we now call sacramentals and what we now call sacraments.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Utrecht Catholic:

Do the current Anglicans still believe in the 39 Articles ?
The US Episcopalians/Anglicans regard them as
an Historical Document.

Most of us in the C of E regard them as historical docs. Only the most conservative evangelicals 'believe' them - so much for sola scriptura.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:

The term 'sacramentum' goes back to Tertullian who used this word to translate the Greek 'mysterion' Augustine said that a sacrament is a 'visible word'composed of word and material element.

I think it goes back further than that. I would defer to anyone who is an expert on the subject, but I think it comes from Roman law where it was used to describe the situation where a transaction had to be effected by a formal action. Banging on some scales was one of them.

A comparable from English law would be a will. One can't just intend to make a will. One has to sign and get it witnessed in a particular way. Otherwise it doesn't work.

On that score, legally rather than theologically, under English law, since 1753 marriage would be a sacramentum. It wouldn't be under other some other legal systems where a marriage can come into being by custom and usage, cohabitation or the presence of nkhoswe, without a ceremony.

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :

Just to unpack the Lutheran position a bit more: For Lutherans the term "Sacrament" tends to be reserved for those outward action/inward grace rites instituted by Christ for the benefit of the Christian community.

That is why marriage, while having sacramental qualities and while affirmed by Jesus as A Good Thing, isn't an official sacrament; it's not a specifically Christian institution, but rather a universal human one.

Other "minor sacraments" may indeed be beneficial for the faith community, but were not explicitly instituted by Christ.

And so on.

Although Philip Melanchthon once noted that, in a more general sense, "hundreds, maybe thousands" of aspects of life had a sacramental quality.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I'm fairly certain that during the Commonwealth in England, marriage in church was abolished.

Certainly when there was discussions at the Savoy House Conference with puritans about revising the BCP, they were very concerned that marriage could not be seen as a sacrament.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I think it goes back further than that. I would defer to anyone who is an expert on the subject, but I think it comes from Roman law where it was used to describe the situation where a transaction had to be effected by a formal action. Banging on some scales was one of them.

A comparable from English law would be a will. One can't just intend to make a will. One has to sign and get it witnessed in a particular way. Otherwise it doesn't work.

On that score, legally rather than theologically, under English law, since 1753 marriage would be a sacramentum. It wouldn't be under other some other legal systems where a marriage can come into being by custom and usage, cohabitation or the presence of nkhoswe, without a ceremony.

I don't think Forthview intended to suggest that the word was Tertullian's own coining but that he was the one who first used the word within the context of Christianity to translate the Greek mysterion.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I'm fairly certain that during the Commonwealth in England, marriage in church was abolished.

Just looked up the Westminster Confession: marriage is certainly not a sacrament, but is appropriately solemnized by "a lawful minister of the Word".

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

No, Trisagion. What I'm suggesting is something slightly different.

Tertullian was writing in Latin at a time when NT Greek was still a living language. He has an option of either keeping a Greek word and latinising it, like (say) episcopos, presbyteros or diakonos or using a Latin word to translate it.

He could have adopted 'mysterium'. If so, we would now use 'mystery' in place of 'sacrament', but after 1800 years of different development, it would not mean what 'mystery' now means in modern English. If he chooses an existing Latin word, it immediately becomes relevant what it meant in Latin before he chose it i.e. why choose that word? That is so, even if his use eventually gives a different swing to it.

Venbede, the question with marriage, is what are the different consequences that follow from classing it as a sacrament? What is the issue that makes it so important for the Puritans at the Savoy Conference that marriage should not be a Sacrament? That matters because otherwise, why does it matter whether there are 2, 7 or any other number?

It can't be the importance of marriage since if anything, the Puritans attached more important to it than anyone else. Is the issue indissolubility, because that doesn't have to follow? There is a strong argument that indissolubility encourages adultery, by losing the sense that it constitutes apostasising a marriage, as evidenced by the difference between C19 French and English attitudes to it.

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

Yes, Enoch, I was aware that that was what you were doing and I agree with you entirely. I simply think you misunderstood what Forthview was doing. I don't think he was suggesting that the only way to understand sacramentum is to understand mysterion, with all its connotations for Greek-speaking Christians, anymore than I think you are suggesting what was meant by Greek speaking Christians when using mysterion had no influence on Tertullian's when he chose sacramentum, with all it's connotations, to render it. If we are to understand the word sacrament, and how it has been used in Christian theology, it seems to me that the pre-history of both terms is indispensable and something of the sheer physicality of the way in which Tertullian and his contemporaries understood sacramentum is a massive part of that picture.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

According to my sources 'sacramentum' in secular Roman usage was the sacred oath which a soldier made when entering the army.The oath was sometimes accompanied by a brandmark on the arm.
Tertullian spoke of Baptism in this way.The words 'I baptise thee etc' plus the water were the same as the words of the oath and the branding.
Certainly at that time Christians would not have argued about exactly how many signs there were which were outward signs conveying in word and matter God's grace to the faithful.It seems to me that all seven Sacraments recognised as such by the Catholic church since medieval times have their origins in words and directives of Jesus.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I'm fairly certain that during the Commonwealth in England, marriage in church was abolished.

Certainly when there was discussions at the Savoy House Conference with puritans about revising the BCP, they were very concerned that marriage could not be seen as a sacrament.

I think the commonwealth objected to the symblism of rings and the nuptial communion. Before the commonwealth, the vows were taken in the church porch. Pre-reformation, they proceeded into church for the nuptial mass. There ois a lot about this here.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Many, probably most, weddings in England weren't in church anyway. There was no legal requirement for weddings to be in particular places, or for marriages to be registered, until the mid 18th century.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I didn't have any point to make about marriage; I was just throwing a point into the pot.

I'm a great sacramentalist, but I am inclined to the view we'd be better off with civil weddings, with an optional church blessing for churchgoers.

The whole subject of marriage is an impossible labyrinth when you look at it.

Certainly, I don't regard my civil partnership as in any way second best. (We've been blessed together about four times without all expense of a white wedding.)

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
According to my sources 'sacramentum' in secular Roman usage was the sacred oath which a soldier made when entering the army.The oath was sometimes accompanied by a brandmark on the arm.
Tertullian spoke of Baptism in this way.The words 'I baptise thee etc' plus the water were the same as the words of the oath and the branding.
Certainly at that time Christians would not have argued about exactly how many signs there were which were outward signs conveying in word and matter God's grace to the faithful.It seems to me that all seven Sacraments recognised as such by the Catholic church since medieval times have their origins in words and directives of Jesus.

I had a look in my Lewis and Short and it gives five uses the word was adopted into Christian use. In descending order of age: 'the sum which the two parties to a suit at first deposited, but afterwards became bound for' - from 'sacro' either because the losing party lost theirs to a sacred purpose or because the sums were deposited in a temple treasury; then 'a cause, a civil suit or process'; later still 'the preliminary engagement entered into by newly enlisted troops before they made their oath' - which oath only became compulsory after the first Punic war; then the 'military oath' itself; and finally 'something to be kept sacred'. Tertullian's eminently practical parallel seems characteristic of a tendency, even from antiquity, towards a powerfully practical tendency in Latin Christianity that easily morph's into the obsessive list making of the medieval theologians. It seems easier to do that if your dealing with sacramentum - this looks like one, and this doesn't - than if you are talking in terms of mysterion.

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by scribbler:
The churches of the Anglican Continuum in the U.S. who subscribe to the Affirmation of St. Louis--and this includes +PD's jurisdiction the UECNA, whether he likes or not--explicitly recognize the seven sacraments.

Except that the Affirmation of St Louis is nowhere mentioned in the UECNA's current (1996) Constitution and Canons, but the Thirty-nine Articles are included in the Declaration of Conformity. The actual status of the Affirmation of St Louis in the UECNA is a bit of a mystery. I believe it was mentioned in the original Draft Constitution and Canons of 1984, but was deleted during the revision process. IIRC, 'cause I have not read it recently, the inter-communion agreement with the ACC says something about the Affirmation as being part of our common heritage, but is no more specific than that.

PD

Posted by PD (# 12436) on :

I should perhaps add that the Affirmation not being mentioned makes little real difference, as most of us - self included - take the 2+5=7 position anyway. The section of the Affirmation that has always made UECNA folks leary is that on 'The Use of Other Formulae' which seems to be an attempt to override the Articles of Religion; though the bit about liturgies incorporating the BCP gets a cold reception in some circles too.

In as much as the UECNA has a position on the Affirmation it is that it supplements and clarifies the BCP and the Articles by addressing some ambiguities in the latter. It also addresses some specific controversies that were kicking around in the 1960s and 70s. Of the late 1970s batch of Continuers the UECNA is probably the most preoccupied with the notion of being "the old PECUSA without the heresy and goofiness" and the least interested in trying to create an 'Anglo-Catholic Dream Church.'

+PD

[ 02. May 2012, 14:41: Message edited by: PD ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0