Ship of Fools: Sacredness & Sacrilege

Thread: Sacredness & Sacrilege 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=025382

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

This arose on the perpetual virginity thread, which then went off in another direction. It seems to me worth its own discussion.

Ad Orientem set out (clearly & concisely ISTM) the sense or feeling behind the idea of perpetual virginity:

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Her womb was sanctified by our Lord's presence. To use a similitude, once a chalice has been consecrated as the vessel of our Lord's blood in the Eucharist it is no longer a common drinking vessel and it would be a sacrilege to use it as such.

There's a bit of devil's advocate here, but suppose that makes no sense to me at all.

I "get" the idea of sacrilege in the sense of using for evil something that is supposed to be about good (about putting aside differences, peace & reconciliation). Poisoning someone is evil; killing someone by poisoning a communion wafer is more evil, because there is the additional element of mocking God. Killing someone with a letter bomb is evil; putting a bomb in a Mother's Day card is in a sense a sacrilege against all that is good in our ideals of motherhood.

What I don't get is that there would be any evil at all in using a chalice from the altar for a good-but-mundane purpose. Such as giving a drink of water to someone who is thirsty.

Do others think this would be sacrilege ? Does it make a difference whether the person being given the drink is a poor man, a wedding guest, a priest, or anyone else ?

If such a use would be wrong, where does that wrongness come from ? In what does it consist ? Can you give an analogy that I would agree was sacrilegious ?

Or conversely, if you think Ad Orientem's sense of sacredness is in some way misplaced, where does that error come from ? To what is it related ? (Superstition ? Contempt of the body ?)

The question I'm asking is not specifically about Mary, nor about "low" vs "high" views of the eucharist. I'm aware that for most people there would be few situations where the use of liturgical vessels would be legitimately theirs to command.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Sacriledge, I admit, probably wasn't the best term I could have used. What I was trying to convey, of course, was a sense of being lifted above ordinary use and thus it would no longer be fitting to be used in an ordinary way.

[ 05. May 2013, 10:31: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]

Posted by Fuff (# 14655) on :

If marriage is a sacrament, then I do not understand why Mary having other children by Joseph would be common and not sacred because of marriage.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
a sense of being lifted above ordinary use and thus it would no longer be fitting to be used in an ordinary way.

If it's an aesthetic point about what is considered fitting rather than a moral point about what should or should not be done, is it an Orthodox cultural thing ? "This is what we do in our church, we don't mix religious and non-religious uses of things" ?

Perhaps a cultural trait shared by the Jews ? So that Mary, having experienced the Holy Spirit in a uniquely intimate way, might well think of her body as something to be set apart in the way that vessels in the Temple were set apart ?

That would make a sort of sense.

As a non-Jew, the resonance for me is with Jesus condemnation of the Pharisees for using "set-apartness" as a way of avoiding taking seriously the needs of others. So I cannot think it a good thing.

But understanding that such was part of Jewish culture at the time doesn't require our approval or disapproval; if it helps us to make sense of things, so be it.

Could be a short thread... [Smile]

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Russ -- consider the temple in the OT. You couldn't use the altar to, say, do a paste-up of your child's kindergarten project; nor could you use Aaron's robe as a tablecloth. They were set aside for a divine purpose (which is what "holy" means), and when something gets set aside, it stays set aside.

Not that there's anything wrong with paste-ups of kindergarten projects, or tablecloths. To make it such a dichotomy is an example of the black-or-white thinking fallacy. "Either you can use anything for purpose X, no matter how it has been set apart for the Lord, _OR_ purpose X is evil."

I'll grant you our Lord had something to say about things that were set aside, but I think it is clear from context that it is not the concept of setting something aside that is wrong, but that it was done to keep from having to support your aging parents. Setting aside a chalice to use just for Communion hardly falls into the same category.

If you can accept that things may be set aside in that way, that that is a concept that is in the Scriptures and part of the understanding of holiness of the Jewish tradition at the time of Christ, then simply extend that to Mary's womb. It's not that having babies in the normal way is evil (don't fall into black-or-white thinking). It's that there was a setting-apart here, in a most incredible way. Containing God is rather more setting-apart than killing bulls or adorning a priest, by factors of infinity.

[ 06. May 2013, 02:17: Message edited by: mousethief ]

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

If the chalice were the only vessel for miles around that could hold water and was a suitable size for drinking from, then using it to give a thirsty man a drink of water would be perfectly fine.

But if the chalice just happened to be on a lower shelf than the Dixie cups, then using it to drink water from is lazy and disrespectful. Unless, of course, you're doing it to make some kind of attention-getting, iconoclastic point about holy objects, in which case it probably is sacrilege.

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

I've had to make this distinction before for people who think they're being radical and prophetic by treating sacred things like they're nothing special. Lots of people seem to think that it's overly fussy to wear vestments for a service, to bow to an altar, or to treat a church building with respect by, say, not bringing your Starbucks cup in and sipping coffee while you're in there. The best-intentioned of them seem to want to point out that holy things are ordinary things, and ordinary things are holy. Well, yes...but also no. Here's my example:

We could, if pressed, or if we wanted to do so for some reason, take a card table out to the park and celebrate the Eucharist with Dixie cups and paper plates. We could do that. We don't do that because we hold the Eucharist to be too valuable and dignified for that. But if that was the only way we could celebrate the Eucharist, we wouldn't not celebrate it for lack of gold and silver vessels or even a church building.

But even if we could, or would, celebrate the Eucharist on any old table with any old vessels in any old place (which I think we can, since all places and material is made holy through the Incarnation), we still want to set apart precious things and sacred space as the norm. And once we do, we don't want to treat the altar and the vessels as if they're a card table and Dixie cups, nor do we want to treat the church like a park.

There's a huge aesthetic element to this, and I think the same people who dismiss aesthetics are the same who are more likely to be iconoclastic and to scoff at setting things apart as holy. Or as von Balthasar said (and I paraphrase), the person who scoffs at beauty will soon find that s/he can no longer love, or even pray.

Charles Peirce said, quite rightly in my opinion, that aesthetics (which he defined as the "normative science of the admirable") is foundational to ethics because we behave according to what we love (or admire). Having certain things, valuable things, set apart for sacred use is part of our training in how to love. It gives us aesthetic and deeply emotional cues about what is important, what we should be paying attention to, and how we ought to orient ourselves. We can't learn such things without learning them in our bodies. We handle sacred things differently than profane things; we behave differently in sacred space than we do elsewhere (or at least we ought to); and ritual also trains us. I have a couple of examples of that.

First, a friend of mine told me that she learned how to assist a disabled friend by serving at the altar. Serving at the altar, you're there to be the priest's extra set of hands, and to help the liturgy move along - not to do what you think should be done how and when you think it should be done. By serving at the altar, we learn to serve others, to give deference to others, and to go beyond ourselves.

My second example is my own. Once I got used to bowing in church (as you do toward anyone who does something for you - a thurifer who censes you, a verger who leads you to the lectern, a server who washes your hands and gives you a towel), I found myself expressing gratitude more freely in everyday life. Bowing in church led to saying "thank you" and "please." All that fussy ritual, you see, trains us in common courtesy as well as gratitude, grace, and propriety.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Here's an interesting question. Is it sacrilegious to put the body of Christ in a Pez dispenser? How about a Pez dispenser specially dedicated to the purpose?

Posted by loggats (# 17643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Here's an interesting question. Is it sacrilegious to put the body of Christ in a Pez dispenser? How about a Pez dispenser specially dedicated to the purpose?

I very much doubt any Catholic or Orthodox priest would use such a thing, and since it's only validly ordained priests who can consecrate the Eucharist it will never be an issue.

But for other ceremonies by other pastors, I suppose it's as good as anything - and the fact it's clean is nice.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by loggats:
I very much doubt any Catholic or Orthodox priest would use such a thing, and since it's only validly ordained priests who can consecrate the Eucharist it will never be an issue.

But for other ceremonies by other pastors, I suppose it's as good as anything - and the fact it's clean is nice.

Well, it starts out clean. Much like a hand, just because it looks clean doesn't mean you should assume it is clean.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
we still want to set apart precious things and sacred space as the norm. And once we do, we don't want to treat the altar and the vessels as if they're a card table and Dixie cups, nor do we want to treat the church like a park.

There's a huge aesthetic element to this, and I think the same people who dismiss aesthetics are the same who are more likely to be iconoclastic and to scoff at setting things apart as holy. Or as von Balthasar said (and I paraphrase), the person who scoffs at beauty will soon find that s/he can no longer love, or even pray.

Charles Peirce said, quite rightly in my opinion, that aesthetics (which he defined as the "normative science of the admirable") is foundational to ethics because we behave according to what we love (or admire). Having certain things, valuable things, set apart for sacred use is part of our training in how to love. It gives us aesthetic and deeply emotional cues about what is important, what we should be paying attention to, and how we ought to orient ourselves. We can't learn such things without learning them in our bodies. We handle sacred things differently than profane things; we behave differently in sacred space than we do elsewhere (or at least we ought to)

I'd argue that we should be people of integrity whose disposition remains constant as we move between sacred and mundane space, whose behaviour differs only with good reason. But it's hard to carry Sunday manners through the week, and easy to let Monday morning set the tone of the whole week, so we need sacred space to call us back to what we should be.

I'm not saying anything against beauty, or against making sacred space as special as possible, using fine things as well as fine words.

But we are called to love of neighbour as well as love of God. And the idea that my neighbour spoils the specialness of my precious things if he puts his grubby paws on them does not seem a loving and Christian one.

Valuable chalice for liturgical use does not preclude giving water to passing traveller in the same vessel. Denying oneself use of said vessel to enhance "specialness" is an offering to God. But we're not called to deny others so as to enhance our own liturgical experience.

I see Jesus' beef with the Jewish religious establishment as going deeper than one specific example.

And I can't agree with your Peirce quote. Aesthetics is culturally-specific (for example different ideals of feminine beauty in 1950s and 1960s films, or in Arab and Oriental cultures). Ethics are universal. Easy to confuse moral and cultural imperatives (because we learn them in much the same way). But that way lies cultural imperialism, which is just another way of treating others as we don't wish to be treated.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
I'd argue that we should be people of integrity whose disposition remains constant as we move between sacred and mundane space, whose behaviour differs only with good reason. But it's hard to carry Sunday manners through the week, and easy to let Monday morning set the tone of the whole week, so we need sacred space to call us back to what we should be.

I'm not saying anything against beauty, or against making sacred space as special as possible, using fine things as well as fine words.

But we are called to love of neighbour as well as love of God. And the idea that my neighbour spoils the specialness of my precious things if he puts his grubby paws on them does not seem a loving and Christian one.

I trust you don't think that's what I was saying. I'm not sure anyone really holds that view - it might be a straw man.

quote:
Valuable chalice for liturgical use does not preclude giving water to passing traveller in the same vessel. Denying oneself use of said vessel to enhance "specialness" is an offering to God. But we're not called to deny others so as to enhance our own liturgical experience.

I see Jesus' beef with the Jewish religious establishment as going deeper than one specific example.

Yeah, I wouldn't disagree with that. Jesus pointed out that when David and his men were hungry, they took the Bread of Presence in the Temple and ate it. That would seem akin to using a chalice to give water to a thirsty person. I think it would even count as precedent to giving the consecrated elements to someone who's hungry, although if any other food and drink is available, that would be preferable.

I'm not sure why preferring to give a thirsty person water from any other available cup before turning to the chalice constituted denying your neighbor, though.

quote:
And I can't agree with your Peirce quote. Aesthetics is culturally-specific (for example different ideals of feminine beauty in 1950s and 1960s films, or in Arab and Oriental cultures). Ethics are universal. Easy to confuse moral and cultural imperatives (because we learn them in much the same way). But that way lies cultural imperialism, which is just another way of treating others as we don't wish to be treated.

You seem to be doing exactly what von Balthasar warns against - treating aesthetics as if it's just window dressing that we can just as easily do without. Aesthetics is about much more than women's fashion. So what if tastes aren't universal? But I can't blame you for not understanding what aesthetics is about; it's long been ignored by Western philosophy and religion, and is still thought of as a trivial consideration - which is part of the reason it gets relegated to women, who the culture also still tends to consider rather trivial. So I'm also not surprised that was your first example.

Aesthetics in liturgy, for example, isn't just about what art objects are used. Aesthetics is about knowing through the senses. Aquinas rightly pointed out that we only know anything through our senses. In the liturgy, for example, when we bow to the Gospel book or to an altar or icon, we are learning in our bodies. That's the sort of thing I was talking about re: learning gratitude from liturgy - not just manners, but a deeply embodied way of being in the world. You can't learn that verbally, not really.

Maybe you have to experience it to understand.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

I'm not sure why preferring to give a thirsty person water from any other available cup before turning to the chalice constituted denying your neighbor, though.

Preferring to use every other conceivable vessel before turning to the chalice says to me "letting my neighbour drink from the chalice is an evil that pollutes it; I permit this only because letting my neighbour remain thirsty is a greater evil".

Whereas my reading is that to Jesus giving your neighbour a drink when he or she is thirsty is the highest possible use to which a chalice is likely to be put.

Do you not see the difference ?

How can you think you're giving your neighbour a drink in Jesus' name if you're reluctant to give him/her a drink in His cup ?

quote:
You seem to be doing exactly what von Balthasar warns against - treating aesthetics as if it's just window dressing that we can just as easily do without.

I have no wish to do without organ music and stained glass, for example. But I think it would be wrong to look down on our Low Church friends who do wish to do without such things.

We have no calling to preach the way Our Culture does church.

quote:
So what if tastes aren't universal?

If tastes aren't universal then practices based on or justified in terms of taste aren't normative.

quote:
when we bow to the Gospel book or to an altar or icon, we are learning in our bodies. That's the sort of thing I was talking about re: learning gratitude from liturgy - not just manners, but a deeply embodied way of being in the world.

I tend to agree.

What's not clear to me is why bodily learning, or more generally being integrated mind and body rather than mind imprisoned in flesh, requires set-asideness of objects for religious purposes. If I lack that particular sense, you've not shown me why it would be good to try to acquire it.

In a liturgical setting the Book symbolises the Word of God and making an appropriate cultural gesture of respect may indeed help us to feel in our heart that respect.

Why does that prevent us using the same book for mundane purposes outside of that context ? If I'm trying to create a thing of beauty and the particular task involves two pieces of wood and some wood glue, a heavy book may be just what I need...

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

How can you think you're giving your neighbour a drink in Jesus' name if you're reluctant to give him/her a drink in His cup ?

If my neighbour came in for a drink of water, I wouldn't give it to him in a crystal wineglass, even if I happened to be holding a clean wineglass in my hand at the time, unless I didn't have any mugs or water glasses available. I'd also prefer to give him a glass over a mug, and either over a teacup.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:

I'm not sure why preferring to give a thirsty person water from any other available cup before turning to the chalice constituted denying your neighbor, though.
Preferring to use every other conceivable vessel before turning to the chalice says to me "letting my neighbour drink from the chalice is an evil that pollutes it; I permit this only because letting my neighbour remain thirsty is a greater evil".

I don't think it says that at all. Letting my neighbour drink from the chalice wouldn't "pollute" it, but since there is a viable alternative in the example cited, what's the harm in showing a little respect for what the chalice signifies.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
what's the harm in showing a little respect for what the chalice signifies.

If what it signifies to you is something that is in some way against the idea of giving your neighbour a drink when he/she is thirsty, then perhaps you've missed the point.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on :

In an emergency, no problem. But in realistic terms, if you're going to use the chalice to give water to a thirsty person, why not go the whole way and make it holy water?

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:
what's the harm in showing a little respect for what the chalice signifies.
If what it signifies to you is something that is in some way against the idea of giving your neighbour a drink when he/she is thirsty, then perhaps you've missed the point.

Best wishes,

Russ

No, that's not what I said. Showing respect to the chalice in the above-mentioned hypothetical situation in no way precludes its use in giving a thirsty person a drink. Quite the opposite! But if, in the hypothetical example, an alternate drinking vessel is equally available why not use that, if you happen to believe, as I do, in the real presence (however defined) of the Blood of Christ in the eucharist.

If possible I'd like to honor that, out of respect that the vessel is generally used for the Blood of my Incarnate Saviour, God and human. On the other hand if another appropriate vessel is NOT available, OF COURSE I would use the chalice as I certainly believe that Jesus would want that.

So in nothing that has been discussed above, have I implied the thirsty person would pollute anything. Nor has there been the implication that the thirsty person should be deprived of a drink if only the chalice is available. I would even go so far as to say if I felt that the thirsty person would be offended if I didn't use the chalice, then I would use it -- but only if the person really took offence at not being able to drink from the chalice.

But I wouldn't go out of the way to give the chalice if another vessel were available because the concept of the real presence of Christ in the eucharist does mean something to me.

It seems to me that the real objection being raised is to the belief in the real presence, and I certainly respect those Christians who differ with the real presence concept -- we all still love and worship Jesus, our God and Saviour; on the other hand some Christians do hold to the concept and I respect that too and happen to hold to that view (happening myself to be one of those who does) -- but, again, subject to what i have written above.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by malik3000:

It seems to me that the real objection being raised is to the belief in the real presence

I'm trying not to get into a discussion of the mystery of the Eucharist. It seems to me that the idea of set-asideness which I'm questioning applies more widely - for example some people feel it would be wrong to use the church building or the liturgical books for other purposes, in much the same way. And use the same words, such as "showing respect" to explain why. Without so far being able to explain why respect requires setting-aside. Particularly when the mundane purpose is something that the person being "respected" would approve of.

As for the "only in emergency" answer which several good people have offered, that seems to be saying that not-setting-aside is a lesser evil. When I'm asking why it's an evil at all.

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

Russ, the one and only issue here is that you have hang-ups about "setting aside" something for God. Doing so is however fundamental to Judaism, Christianity and indeed pretty much any religion that has ever existed anywhere on this planet. It is perhaps the fundamental religious expression of man, and one way of understanding the fall of humanity is that Adam and Eve used profanely what was set aside for - sacred to - God. You base your objection on a shallow misunderstanding of Christ, pretending that Christ attacked Jewish practice in this regard essentially. He did not. He simply corrected their practice by pointing out that making things sacred is done for the benefit of man, not of God. Hence there can never be a contradiction between significantly benefitting somebody and the sacred: one can for example heal someone on Sabbath. Likewise, a chalice certainly can be used to provide drink to a man dying of thirst.

Such profane necessity however in practice rarely arise. We tend to have glasses around for drinking water. All that is happening here is that you try to diminish the religious practice of others according to your "low church" prejudices. How about you leave us to our sacredness, and we leave you to your profaneness?

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

We include you in your exclusion after all.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Well put, IngoB.

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :

Hmmm. Feel like a bit of a prat for my last comment. One trick pony. Monomanic. All roads to Rome and all that.

So I openly embrace your comment IngoB. But not you of course. That would be ad hominem. Snigger.

Well put as ever indeed.

Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Such profane necessity however in practice rarely arise. We tend to have glasses around for drinking water. All that is happening here is that you try to diminish the religious practice of others according to your "low church" prejudices.

That may be the case but the particular example here is interesting. If the chalice is set aside for our benefit and the reason is that in setting it aside, we symbolically emphasise the importance of what happens at the Eucharist (I'm pretty much a transubstantiationalist but I'm trying to keep this general) then using the chalice to save someone's life would not seem to be contrary to that purpose. This is qualitatively different to using the chalice for a mundane task precisely in order to desacralise its use.

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
If the chalice is set aside for our benefit and the reason is that in setting it aside, we symbolically emphasise the importance of what happens at the Eucharist (I'm pretty much a transubstantiationalist but I'm trying to keep this general) then using the chalice to save someone's life would not seem to be contrary to that purpose. This is qualitatively different to using the chalice for a mundane task precisely in order to desacralise its use.

Saving one's worldly life is not in fact the purpose of the Eucharist, though that may serve as an analogy. But anyhow, even if the Eucharist were focused on a first aid kit, this misses the point.

Say you visit a widow and you see that right next to her husband's photo there stands on a little pedestal a highly polished, though otherwise quite normal and clearly used, coffee cup. You ask about it and she replies that her late husband for three decades drank the coffee at his desk from this cup, and this cup only, and she is keeping it in memory of him. Now some time passes and she suddenly says "Let's have some coffee." As she brings out the coffee and puts a cup in front of you, you realize that you've seen this cup before. You look, and indeed she has used the cup of her late husband!

Awkward? (I hope so, because if not then the analogy is lost on you.) But why? After all, this is a coffee cup used for its intended purpose, namely serving coffee. However, it was previously set aside in memory of her husband. Not against its primary purpose of serving coffee, but because of it. At a minimum you now have to wonder if the widow sees you as somehow representing her dead husband. Perhaps she even wants you to become her next husband?! All this signal value exists in a different realm to the drinking of coffee, though it is clearly based on it.

Of course, if you were lying in the street dying of thirst, and the widow had rushed out with the very same cup filled with water (because it was the first thing at hand), then none of this signal value would come into play. There would be no reason to suspect that the widow is interested in anything but simply helping you.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Say you visit a widow and you see that right next to her husband's photo there stands on a little pedestal a highly polished, though otherwise quite normal and clearly used, coffee cup. You ask about it and she replies that her late husband for three decades drank the coffee at his desk from this cup, and this cup only, and she is keeping it in memory of him. Now some time passes and she suddenly says "Let's have some coffee." As she brings out the coffee and puts a cup in front of you, you realize that you've seen this cup before. You look, and indeed she has used the cup of her late husband!

Awkward? (I hope so, because if not then the analogy is lost on you.) But why? After all, this is a coffee cup used for its intended purpose, namely serving coffee. However, it was previously set aside in memory of her husband. Not against its primary purpose of serving coffee, but because of it...

I've been reading this thread and nodding along with Russ, but struggling to put my thoughts into words. But, IngoB, your analogy above has helped, so thank you!

In your analogy, the coffee cup acts as a specific reminder and memorial of the woman's late husband. But in my theology, the idea is that everything we own and everything about us is supposed to be dedicated to God, so to have something (like a Communion chalice) specially set aside for what one might call 'holy purposes' doesn't make sense. Everything is intended to be used for God's glory.

Referencing back to the Temple makes no sense to me because Jesus is the new Temple and he explicitly taught that worshipping God is not about going to this or that place. Then Paul said that our act of worship is to offer up our entire life to God; i.e. everything about us should be dedicated to God.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
In your analogy, the coffee cup acts as a specific reminder and memorial of the woman's late husband. But in my theology, the idea is that everything we own and everything about us is supposed to be dedicated to God, so to have something (like a Communion chalice) specially set aside for what one might call 'holy purposes' doesn't make sense. Everything is intended to be used for God's glory.

But I think dedicating 'special things' is just what humans do even if it's not logical.

e.g. What's the point of celebrating your wedding anniversary? Aren't you married all year round, not just on that date?

Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on :

quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But in my theology, the idea is that everything we own and everything about us is supposed to be dedicated to God, so to have something (like a Communion chalice) specially set aside for what one might call 'holy purposes' doesn't make sense. Everything is intended to be used for God's glory.

To (mis)quote The Incredibles "If everything's special then nothing is."

We are sinful fallen humans and unfortunately cannot go about our daily lives fully aware and respectful of the sanctity of everything. If we did then we would be Angels or Christ Himself.

Everything is indeed intended for Christ's glory but even to show us what that means we need specific examples. Perhaps we need to raise the bar high for a few things to show us what we should be aiming for with everything. Otherwise, inevitably, instead of raising everything to the sacred, we reduce everything to the profane.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB
Say you visit a widow and you see that right next to her husband's photo there stands on a little pedestal a highly polished, though otherwise quite normal and clearly used, coffee cup. etc...

A very good analogy, and, by and large, I agree with the point you are making concerning the way material objects can be 'consecrated' for specific purposes. I do have a quibble with the use of 'profane necessity' to describe the emergency use of such objects, but I realise you are using 'profane' in a technical sense (ISTM that nothing could be more 'sacred' then ministering to people's needs within the context of the love of God).

But the original point was about Mary's putative perpetual virginity. God can obviously miraculously use a womb to bring to birth a person set aside for His purposes, like Samuel. In fact, Samuel is quite a good example, who, IMO, foreshadows Christ. Given that Jesus made clear that the Scriptures (the OT, of course) were about Him, then I think we are justified in discerning prophetic pointers to Christ in the lives of Old Testament saints. There does seem to be a parallel between Hannah and Mary* (note the remarkable similarity between Hannah's prayer in 1 Samuel 2:1-10 and the Magnificat of Luke 1:46-55). As we know, Hannah was barren and God miraculously enabled her to conceive after she vowed to dedicate her firstborn to the service of God ("I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life" - 1 Samuel 1:11). This healing was no less a miracle than the virgin birth of Christ, and the consecration to God was, in essence, no different from the consecration of Christ, since there are no degrees of holiness.

So I think that we can gain some insight into how God viewed a consecrated womb, which miraculously bore a person utterly dedicated to God. In 2 Samuel 2:21 we read: "And the LORD visited Hannah, so that she conceived and bore three sons and two daughters. Meanwhile the child Samuel grew before the LORD."

God's blessed Hannah with more children. So out of a consecrated life and womb, God brought forth more life. Life is sacred, not profane. How therefore could such further life have profaned Mary's womb?

* See this website from the Catholic Network EWTN in which the parallel between Hannah and Mary is acknowledged:

quote:
To read Lk 1-2, even superficially, is immediately to call to mind stories in the OT of women who gave birth to remarkable offspring ....

But it is probably to the story of the birth of Samuel that Luke is most indebted. In many ways Mary, 'the handmaid of the Lord' is patterned on Hannah, 'the handmaid, who, of all OT mothers, is the archetypal figure of maternal devotion and religious piety, dedicating her son entirely to the service of Yahweh in the temple, and there rejoicing over her son's birth with a paean of praise. Much of the thought and even the language of Hannah's song is taken up by Mary, the new Hannah, in the Magnificat. So now Mary becomes, not merely the symbol of the faithful of Israel in general, but the symbol of the faithful mother in particular.

[ 14. May 2013, 09:48: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You look, and indeed she has used the cup of her late husband!

Awkward? (I hope so, because if not then the analogy is lost on you.)

Maybe lost on me, then. I'd see it as an honoured-guest thing, like bringing out the best china. Which could be awkward in the sense that I may be unable or unwilling to extend a reciprocal invitation for her to be honoured-guest in my house.

But I wouldn't feel any sense of committing sacrilege by drinking the coffee.

If setting aside the cup is her custom and not mine, it is her choice to uphold or not uphold that custom in a situation where there are alternative vessels available. I'm a guest in her house.

If her husband had been a golf fanatic I might find it strange that she'd think he'd want it to be used for anything other than the 9-hole course in the garden...

I'm not setting out to do down your or anyone else's religious customs. I find it meaningful to distinguish choices that are morally good, neutral, or bad. I started the thread in response to a comment to the effect that breach of the custom of setting-aside was sacrilege (morally bad). That proposition seems to me mistaken.

If setting-aside is no more than a morally-neutral custom amongst some religious groups, then
- there is no shadow of a moral obligation on other religious groups to adopt the same custom, and
- the custom provides no element of escape or relief from any moral imperative or duty of care to others (which was the context in which Jesus was critical).

If all you're asserting is "this is our custom" then that's fine. No hang-up.

Natural Law & cultural pluralism is where I'm coming from; cultural relativism without moral relativism. Holding such a line seems to require a moral/nonmoral boundary which not everyone seems to recognise.

If that makes any sense...

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by anselmo (# 17685) on :

I like Russ's May 5th commentary/reasoning because it is so revealing.
There is something intrnsically comical about protestants discussing the nature of The Sacred. It is like anyone discussing anything with which they have had no experience whatsoever.
We remember that the first proponent of 'sola scriptura', the movement to make the bible alone sacred as an earthly object, freely changed key words and deleted books according to his own whim and fancy. That was the seed of a tree whose fruit continues to rot. It inspired 500 years of sacrilege culminating in the moral decadence we see in the West today.

Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anselmo:
I like Russ's May 5th commentary/reasoning because it is so revealing.
There is something intrnsically comical about protestants discussing the nature of The Sacred. It is like anyone discussing anything with which they have had no experience whatsoever.

Welcome to Ship of Fools and congratulations on such a, hmm, controversial first post. [Big Grin]

As a protestant, could I suggest that I have some experience of The Sacred, especially as by using capital letters I assume you're referring to God Himself...?

If I've misunderstood, then I still maintain I have experience of the sacred as (IMO) all of creation is sacred, in the sense of being intended for God's glory.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anselmo:
There is something intrnsically comical about protestants discussing the nature of The Sacred. It is like anyone discussing anything with which they have had no experience whatsoever.

Oh dear.

quote:
We remember that the first proponent of 'sola scriptura', the movement to make the bible alone sacred as an earthly object, freely changed key words and deleted books according to his own whim and fancy.

Re: the Old Testament, the Protestant canon simply follows the Jewish canon. Nothing sacrilegious or untoward there. [Cool]

I have no beef with the Deuterocanonical books but, like the Reformers, don't regard them as being prescriptive for doctrine.

quote:
That was the seed of a tree whose fruit continues to rot. It inspired 500 years of sacrilege culminating in the moral decadence we see in the West today.

Of course the moral decadence and corruption of some of the pre-Reformation Popes had absolutely nothing to do with the events leading up to the Reformation ...

The '500 years of sacrilege' include the great Protestant missionary movements of the 18th and 19th century, the campaign against slavery, the campaign for social reform, etc etc etc etc. ... Not to mention the sterling work of William Tyndale and Martin Luther in producing Bible translations that were hugely influential on both the English and German languages, the timeless poetry of the King James Bible, the great Anglican choral tradition ... Yeah, the last 500 years have been a disaster for Christ's Church. Not.

Instead of seeing Protestantism as solely responsible for the woes of the Western church today, look instead to the great 'de-sacralising' that took place last century, e.g. the carnage wrought by two catastrophic world wars and by Communist revolutions, etc.

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

quote:
originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:
originally posted by anselmo
We remember that the first proponent of 'sola scriptura', the movement to make the bible alone sacred as an earthly object, freely changed key words and deleted books according to his own whim and fancy.
Re: the Old Testament, the Protestant canon simply follows the Jewish canon. Nothing sacrilegious or untoward there.

I have no beef with the Deuterocanonical books but, like the Reformers, don't regard them as being prescriptive for doctrine.

I'm not entirely sure about this, but I imagine he meant Luther's decision to remove the Epistle of S. James from the canon, the "Epistle of Straw" as he saw it, rather than the downgrading of the Apocrypha.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

This discussion reminds me of the time when we had a new pastor at his first voter's meeting. We were meeting in the sanctuary. Our sanctuary is in the round. He had a cup of coffee in his hand, but he wanted to check some notes he had on a lectern beside the altar. So, he naturally put the cup down on the altar. Some of the older people came unnerved by it. While no one said anything then, as worship committee chairman I heard about it later. I went to the new pastor and told him there has been a tacit understanding that only the communion ware could be put on the altar. His reply: "Which is worse, me putting a cup on the altar, or spilling the coffee on the (white) carpet?" I had to agree with him on that point.

Deal of is, Jesus did not get too hung up over such petty rules. Remember when the Jesus and the disciples were walking through a field on the sabbath and the disciples plucked some grain to eat it?

BTW, the analogy of Mary's womb being a holy vessel (that is, set apart) does not hold water (or wine, in this case) Rather, I would point out how God used an imperfect vessel to do a holy thing--introducing his Son into the world in a new way. In my book the perpetual virginity of Mary is a human doctrine found nowhere in the Bible.

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
I'm not entirely sure about this, but I imagine he meant Luther's decision to remove the Epistle of S. James from the canon, the "Epistle of Straw" as he saw it, rather than the downgrading of the Apocrypha.

But Luther didn't remove it. [Smile]

He said some goofy things at times, to be sure, and he does seem to have regretted his 'epistle of straw' comment (as well he should!) He seems to have been aware, as of course his Roman Catholic colleagues were, of the disputed authorship of the book. He said at one point that the Epistle of James "sets up no doctrine of men but vigorously promulgates the law of God."

Posted by Vade Mecum (# 17688) on :

You appear to be right. Well there goes another wonderful stick for beating the Protestants with...

[Razz]

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Vade Mecum:
You appear to be right. Well there goes another wonderful stick for beating the Protestants with...

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anselmo
There is something intrnsically comical about protestants discussing the nature of The Sacred. It is like anyone discussing anything with which they have had no experience whatsoever.

Protestants have had no experience whatsoever of the Sacred?

Got any evidence to support this assertion?

[Confused]

If you're right, then clearly I must not be a Protestant! Thanks for letting me know...

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Ooooh! A sockpuppet troll pretending to be a racist bigot of a brain-dead Anglo-Catholic! Lunch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I must admit, I loved that almost-unrecognizable sketch of the Reformation, with its overly ripe metaphors breathing putrid odors into the atmosphere. [sniffs] Ah, I love the smell of nutcase in the evening. But poor Luther! [Snigger]

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anselmo:
protestants discussing the nature of The Sacred.

General points about the Protestant-Catholic divide (or spectrum, if you prefer) is a subject for another thread - probably where all the other skeletal stallions are stabled.

But if you see "set-asideness" as a P vs C issue, I'd be interested to hear how you think it relates to the defining issues on which Protestants and Catholics differ (such as emphasising Word vs Sacrament, where authority lies, High Church vs Low Church etc)

Is it the case that Protestants see the church-event - the coming together of the Body of Christ for communal prayer and worship - as something holy whereas in Catholic thought the ? holiness ? sacredness ? spills over and becomes an inherent property of the objects - the building, the pews, the candlesticks etc ?

Offering your own insight is usually more constructive than deriding others' lack of same...

Best wishes,

Russ

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0