quote:

---

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
"We don't understand it, so it must be (drum roll) MAGIC". This saves so much time and talk.

But it doesn't explain much.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If a sacrament is where the physical meets the holy, where God touches what is physical so that God's presence becomes known through it, this is something God understands and we don't. All we know is that it happens, and that when we put certain conditions in place, by God's grace it does happen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
If a sacrament is where the physical meets the holy, where God touches what is physical so that God's presence becomes known through it,...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
OK, then we should define magic for the discussion.

Magic as the suspension or supercession of natural law by ritual or mechanism?
Versus
Sacrament as the suspension or supercession of natural law by deity?
ISTM, the only difference is belief.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
to pretend to your friends that you control the outcome

---

quote:

---

the assumption is that with the right technique you can manipulate "forces" in creation to serve you

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
If they are similar in terms of modus operandi, what are these similarities?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm often told by high up the candle people that 'the sacraments aren't magic'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

Ultimately, these are very different things (and one of them exists, the other doesn't...).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
So it's not necessarily a sacrament if a clergy person say so, Belle Ringer, but it is when you assess it to be so on the basis of your own subjective experience?

Hmmm ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
From an outside point of view, it might seem like magic: ie the performer acts out what is required, and the result is something extraordinary. The similarity ends there. A magician is in control and is duping the spectators. A priest by faith is asking of God what he or she has been called by God to ask for, so that God will be glorified as the request is granted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Belle, I'm with Gamaliel on this one. Whether God is present does not depend on whether we feel his presence. Nor can we make the moment more holy by concentrating our minds and feeling more pious. Nor is the moment more holy because of the way the celebrant does the Mass or because the music is lovely. God created all things. We are al, all the time,l just as near to him, whether we feel he is close or not.

That is both true, and in my experience, a great deal more comforting when things are rough and God feels remote, than an explanation that gives the impression that if we can't feel the right feelings, that means we are far from God's presence.

It's also why, without going too closely into arguments about how, I believe that the sacraments are objective not subjective.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
It's an alluring temptation, to which we are all prone, but the notion that we can bend God to our will, either by performing the right ceremonies or by any other means, is getting the nature of life, the universe, everything and 42 completely the wrong way round.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
How can God be felt or known?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What worries me in drawing those kind of parallels, though, is the sense that we can somehow 'manipulate' God or concoct/confect a particular result by mechanistic means.

I think that's what might be behind Fletcher's objection ... surely the sacraments (whatever else they might be 'about') are to do with grace and receiving that grace rather than pushing buttons or manipulating conditions and circumstances to ensure or obtain a pre-determined or preternatural result?

---

Sacraments guarantee that grace is given, not that grace is received. The former concerns what God does, the latter what we do. We can "manipulate" God into giving us grace because God promised us these gifts. If I tell my son that he can play another hour of Minecraft if he does some additional maths exercises, and he does that, then he will have "manipulated" me into letting him play longer on the computer. In truth though, I have manipulated him towards the target of improving his maths skills. Likewise, in truth God is manipulating us towards our salvation with the sacramental system, precisely in our "manipulation" of him to give us grace.

Of course, the sacramental system is a slightly more adult affair than my manipulation of my nine year old son, insofar as at least theoretically our goals and God's should be aligned - we both wish for our salvation, whereas my son wishes to play on the computer, and sees the maths exercises as a means towards that. In practice though, this means 1) that the sacramental system is rather less effective than my manipulation with computer time, which works pretty much flawlessly, and 2) people are often enough childish and may well seek the sacraments for other reasons, like social acceptance. Still, in the end it is a typical educational measure that a Father may come up with... and if it makes the sons and daughters feel "in control" of the process, then that's OK. In a sense it is a good thing if children feel "in control" in such scenarios, because it teaches them to work towards a target while actually heading them in the right direction.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
As ever, I can't fault your logic, IngoB, even if I'm uncomfortable with the conclusions ...


 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
On the 'guarantee' thing ...

It seems to me that grace is 'guaranteed' to a certain extent - what the Reformers called 'common grace' - but that sacraments act as particular 'means of grace' ...

Which isn't surprising given my evangelical Protestant background.

I s'pose I'm still squeamish about some aspects of more sacramental systems because of presuppositions and assumptions I've carried with me from that background.

Which is again unsurprising.

I'm not sure what it is that worries me ... I can't quite put my finger on it.

It could be what I take to be the more 'mechanistic' implications that I'm reading into the matter ...

It could be some other reason or set of reasons entirely.

I don't know.

I've attended some pretty heavy-duty sacramental services that go beyond my Protestant comfort zone ... which has proven more elastic as I've got older - such as an RC Exposition of the Blessed Sacrament and also the veneration of a Russian icon of the Virgin Mary which was 'on tour' here in the UK a few years ago.

At both of these I felt a churning mix of reactions and emotions ... from discomfort to a sense of well-being, from a frisson of 'danger' at doing something I'd have previously criticised or condemned to a sense of the whole thing being perfectly natural and 'apt' within its own context ...

On neither of these occasions did the sky fall in ...
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
It's interesting that many lower-church Christians would believe in magic as a malevolent force, but definitely not sacraments (and some more ignorant ones would view sacraments as a kind of un-Godly magic).

Are more sacramental Christians less inclined to believe in magic? Certainly no Catholic I know has ever had an issue with Harry Potter...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Heh heh ...

I'm inclined to think - at the risk of sounding patronising - that there's a kind of parallel/mirror image thing going on between certain forms of low-church iconoclasm or anti-sacramentalism and what we might call an 'over-realised' or superstititious sacramentalism at the populist (and sometimes not so populist level) among the more sacramental traditions.

They sort of balance one another out.

I'm sure it's a lot more complicated than that, but that's certainly how I've found these things to work out in practice.

I've known an evangelical vicar and his wife get very hot under the collar when their daughter was required to make a papier-mache model of a Hindu demon in an RE (Religious Education) lesson ... and be startled to find that neither my wife, my daughter nor myself were at all fazed by the request ... but only narked because we had to get some materials together for the eldest Gamaliette to make the model at short notice.

When I asked him whether he'd have a similar problem if it had been an icon of Christ he spluttered a bit and eventually said that he would ...
 

---

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 
Now there's something that I find interesting - why does a comparative RE class end up focussing on demons? There is a whole pantheon of Gods with positive attributes that could equally be made into paper mache figurines. Something imo is really badly out of context. Just because popular culture tells young people that zombies and vampires and demons are good fun (which I assume was the reason the RE teacher picked this as a "fun thing to do" in the lesson) - doesn't make them good fun.
 

---

Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on :
 
We don't know that it was focusing on demons, and in any case surely the point about demons, zombies, vampires etc is that they're not real? In any case, demons have a religious aspect to them, vampires and the like don't (zombies, sort of - but not the modern Western interpretation).

If I had to guess, it's probably the demon of ignorance which Shiva dances on and destroys in Hinduism.
 

---

Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
What worries me in drawing those kind of parallels, though, is the sense that we can somehow 'manipulate' God or concoct/confect a particular result by mechanistic means.

I think that's what might be behind Fletcher's objection ... surely the sacraments (whatever else they might be 'about') are to do with grace and receiving that grace rather than pushing buttons or manipulating conditions and circumstances to ensure or obtain a pre-determined or preternatural result?

---

Sacraments guarantee that grace is given, not that grace is received. The former concerns what God does, the latter what we do. We can "manipulate" God into giving us grace because God promised us these gifts. If I tell my son that he can play another hour of Minecraft if he does some additional maths exercises, and he does that, then he will have "manipulated" me into letting him play longer on the computer. In truth though, I have manipulated him towards the target of improving his maths skills. Likewise, in truth God is manipulating us towards our salvation with the sacramental system, precisely in our "manipulation" of him to give us grace.

Of course, the sacramental system is a slightly more adult affair than my manipulation of my nine year old son, insofar as at least theoretically our goals and God's should be aligned - we both wish for our salvation, whereas my son wishes to play on the computer, and sees the maths exercises as a means towards that. In practice though, this means 1) that the sacramental system is rather less effective than my manipulation with computer time, which works pretty much flawlessly, and 2) people are often enough childish and may well seek the sacraments for other reasons, like social acceptance. Still, in the end it is a typical educational measure that a Father may come up with... and if it makes the sons and daughters feel "in control" of the process, then that's OK. In a sense it is a good thing if children feel "in control" in such scenarios, because it teaches them to work towards a target while actually heading them in the right direction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pomona:
We don't know that it was focusing on demons, and in any case surely the point about demons, zombies, vampires etc is that they're not real? In any case, demons have a religious aspect to them, vampires and the like don't (zombies, sort of - but not the modern Western interpretation).

If I had to guess, it's probably the demon of ignorance which Shiva dances on and destroys in Hinduism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stejjie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
Whether God is present does not depend on whether we feel his presence.

---

But saying someone "is present" is different from saying someone "makes themselves known" (or "becomes known")...

So, ISTM that you've got to be careful with the language that's used. If someone says "God becomes known to us through the Sacraments", then they either need to say how that happens even if [some] people don't experience it, or be ready for people saying "No God doesn't - or at least, he didn't for me".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I keep mentioning the book Sacred Pathways which points out a variety of different activities/environments by which different personalities sense God presence. What works well as a sacrament for one person is a non-sacrament or anti-sacrament for another. That's the truth no matter what out of touch with reality (backed by social or political power) theology the church invented.

---

I like that book very much, and appreciate the way you're using the word 'sacrament' here. It's just the word has a specific meaning, so maybe it's not helpful to use it in this broader sense - unless you're deliberately trying to redefine it, of course...
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
...a variety of different activities/environments by which different personalities sense God presence. What works well as a sacrament for one person is a non-sacrament or anti-sacrament for another.

---

I ... appreciate the way you're using the word 'sacrament' here. It's just the word has a specific meaning, so maybe it's not helpful to use it in this broader sense - unless you're deliberately trying to redefine it, of course...

---

Depends on what you mean by redefine. Isn't it the church/clergy-centered people who did the redefining?

If a sacrament is a thing or activity or event that reveals God to a person, there are many sacraments. When discussion limits the word to seven or two, the discussion is distorted by several (usually unspoken) assumptions all of which I think are quite wrong: 1) that some activities are more fully or more importantly sacraments than anything else can be, 2) that these few things function as sacraments for all people, and 3) because clergy are the only ones who can provide these super important super universal sacraments, clergy are far more important to the spiritual health of the community than any other human being (or any thousand other human beings).

But then, I'm very protestant, can you tell?

I also worry that if we teach people about only a couple of sacraments dependent on the presence of clergy, we leave people thinking they are without sacramental aid when they are nowhere near a church building - in prison, in a hospital, shut in at home, lost in the woods, kidnapped by terrorists.

We do people more benefit if we teach them how to turn many things into having sacramental function, so they don't have to feel alone just because there's no official clergy nearby to depend on.

I think clergy can be useful (and some are kinda cute!) but their job should be empowering people to seek and know God, not training people to be dependents of clergy.

That which the formal churches do on Sunday morning instinctively communicates to me God is distant remote disinterested and boring. For me it's an anti-sacrament, so calling it a universal sacrament is deadly wrong. It works for some people but not for all. Never let theology blind you to reality! (One of my mottos).
 

---

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
Belle Ringer:

quote:

---

Depends on what you mean by redefine. Isn't it the church/clergy-centered people who did the redefining <of the word sacrament>?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
That which the formal churches do on Sunday morning instinctively communicates to me God is distant remote disinterested and boring. For me it's an anti-sacrament, so calling it a universal sacrament is deadly wrong. It works for some people but not for all. Never let theology blind you to reality! (One of my mottos).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Belle Ringer:

quote:

---

Depends on what you mean by redefine. Isn't it the church/clergy-centered people who did the redefining <of the word sacrament>?

---

I don't know the historical etymology of the word sacrament. Was the word coined by lay Christians independent of church involvement, and then later on the church/clergy-centered people laid claim to it for their own defined usage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
There was a time when there was no church - only a bunch of friends of nominally jewish persuasion wondering what to do, and following instructions they had been left. It strikes me that they would probably not have been quite so heavy on ritual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

I s'pose the 'take' I'd adopt these days is that I'd agree with Belle Ringer that all of life is sacred and that some people derive as much benefit from a walk in the woods as others do from attending High Mass at the Brompton Oratory or St Spikey the Sharp-Elbowed of Nosebleed Altitude Street, Bells & Smellstown ...

.. there is at least some commonly agreement that there are a set of 'sanctioned' actions that convey or express divine grace.

---

quote:

---

This isn't to say that they are the only ways by which grace is conveyed or expressed ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Again, I agree with you, Belle Ringer. I think clergy-dependency is one of the most pernicious things in Christianity - ISTM it goes against the fundamental tenor of the New Testament, that we can all know and experience God directly for ourselves, with our only mediator being Christ (who is God anyway!).

If I could, I think I'd ditch the whole concept of sacrament. How is it a helpful concept, can anyone help me understand?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

If I could, I think I'd ditch the whole concept of sacrament. How is it a helpful concept, can anyone help me understand?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

If I could, I think I'd ditch the whole concept of sacrament. How is it a helpful concept, can anyone help me understand?

---

Do you think there is any category difference between Communion and those other ways of 'experiencing Christ directly' that you allude to?

---

Personally, no I don't. Referring to Gamaliel's response, it's not that I think the sacraments themselves are unhelpful, rather it's the act of separating them into a special category.

Jesus and his first followers gave us many instructions, principles and examples to follow; I don't see how it is helpful to pick out 2, 7 or however many of those and put a special label on them.

And I think it's especially unhelpful to say that only a certain group of people are permitted / authorised / qualified to carry out these specially-labelled activities.
 

---

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :
 
Each individual Christian has a unique relationship with God.However each individual Christian is also part of the family of God,which is the Church.
We come together as the family of God to be together as a family should be and to participate in family events.
The word 'sacramentum' was used in the West to translate the Greek word 'mysterion' Tertullian was the first to translate this word as 'sacramentum' which in everyday usage was the pledge made by a soldier on entering military service.The arm of the soldier was sometimes branded to show whom he would serve.Tertullian described baptism as a sacramentum through word and visible sign and the idea was taken up by theologians who described sacraments as 'visible words' composed of words and material elements.

Within the family of the Church certain members have particular responsibilities,but they are not APART from the rest of the family. Bishops,presbyters and deacons a A PART of the family.As far as the Catholic church is concerned baptism can be administered by anyone and marriage is administered by the bride and groom.
Other sacraments need the presence of the members of the family who have been commissioned by the family to do so - that is bishops,priests and deacons.

AS Christians we are NOT ALONE,but find our salvation within the family of the Church.

Although the Catholic and Orthodox church specify seven sacraments we can,if we wish, see many other things as sacraments - even a walk in the park but that is more on an individual level rather than that of the whole Church.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I can understand why you take the position you do, South Coast Kevin ... and at one time you'd have heard me argue along very similar lines.

I've changed my tune on this one over the years. That's not to say that I've learned my instrument any better than you, as it were ...

It strikes me that a high degree of sacramentalism and a high degree of what we might call 'charismaticism' can co-exist ... there are many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, or RC charismatics for instance ... although the figures fluctuate depending on the sources and criteria and so on.

I asked an RC priest about this back in the summer and he said that to all intents and purposes there was no difference whatsoever between the charismatic scene in the RCC and the charismatic movement anywhere else. They sing the same songs and probably use a lot of material you'd be familiar with.

When I asked him how the 'charismata' tended to manifest itself he said that this was similar to how these things 'work' within the CofE or other mainstream Protestant churches.

The only difference, as far as he was concerned, was that RCs might combine these with specifically Catholic devotional practices - so, someone might 'speak in tongues' when praying the Rosary, for instance, or when confronted by the Consecrated Host during Benediction or Exposition ...

He'd recently 'presided' over a Mass at an RC charismatic convention - he was the celebrant at one of the services. I asked him what he thought of it and he said that it was way too loud and as far as he was concerned it detracted from the dignity and solemnity of the occasion.

Whatever the case, if we take the presence of 'charismata' as an indication of the Spirit's particular presence and operation, then whatever the ins and outs of all this it demonstrates that it is possible to be both charismatic and sacramental in approach at one and the same time.

On the issue of whether it's good, bad or indifferent to have designated people 'presiding' at communion ... well, I can only say that it doesn't bother me in the least.

I speak as someone who used to be in a full-on charismatic church where communion was celebrated in all sorts of ways - sometimes as a 'help yourself' kind of free for all ... sometimes in a more 'conventional' way.

I have myself 'presided' as it were at communions in house-group settings and indeed in a 'whole church' setting in a Baptist church - where lay presidency was allowed.

That was fine - in that context.

But I don't feel in any way 'disenfranchised' or 'deprived' or miffed or whatever else if I go to a church where an ordained minister or priest is the only one authorised to preside at communion.

That's no skin off my nose.

Why should it be?

Do I go home smarting and thinking, 'Dang! I wish I was allowed to do that ...'

No, why should I?

It's not that I'm not 'special' enough or holy enough or whatever else - and I'm certainly neither of those things - but that doesn't really come into it. If I took my wife to a restaurant this weekend, would I go home thinking, 'Dang, they had a waiter to serve our meal, I was deprived of the opportunity to go and fetch it or cook it myself ... I feel cheated now ...'



Lots of churches which only have priests or clergy presiding at communion have small group studies and all the rest of it ... heck, I've been to RC lectio-divina sessions and so on that are led by little old ladies with no clergy-persons present whatsoever.

It's one of these both/and not either/or things again.
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
That which the formal churches do on Sunday morning instinctively communicates to me God is distant remote disinterested and boring. For me it's an anti-sacrament, so calling it a universal sacrament is deadly wrong. It works for some people but not for all.

---

just how much time have you spent in actually exploring these "boring anti-sacraments" as a way of spiritual life? It's one thing to say that you have tasted spinach, and so a few times prepared in different ways, and that you just don't particularly like it. It's quite another to say that you don't like spinach because it looks green and your mum and dad are trying to force it on you instead of yummy cookies.

---

Lots of time. Years and years of time. Bookshelves of time. Grew up Episcopalian. It turned me until an agnostic. The strong symbolism conveys the inherent message that God is distant and disinterested and values only clergy anyway. (Sometimes I suspect it was intentionally designed to convey that, by self-important clergy.)

Periodically I try it again, and within two years have lost all interest in God again because the formal eucharist ceremony instinctively conveys to me "God is distant and boring and utterly uninvolved."

I have no problem with some people finding the ceremony meaningful. But their historical demand that everyone pretend it's meaningful to them or die, shows a strong anti-God pro-political power element to the historical church.

Whatever the "historical church" ever said must be questioned, it's as likely wrong as right. Crusades, anyone? Locking nuns in a convent and telling them to stay there and burn to death instead of leaving? Why should I believe any "you should do this" from the church that invented these anti-God ideas?

What some obviously poor at reflecting God's values historical church says has nothing to do with determining what is real in God's eyes.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Since when have the Episcopalians advocated locking nuns in convents and having them burn to death instead of leaving if the building is on fire ...



I can understand aspects of Episcopalianism - or Anglicanism as we'd call it - leading to agnosticism ... but the same could be said for various forms of fundamentalism.

Former fundamentalists make very good atheists, I've found.

I can understand why Episcopalianism or various forms of 'historic' church might not appeal to you but there are equal and opposite dangers among some of the newer and trendier groups too from what I've seen.

The same sun that melts the wax hardens the clay and so on ...

The use of liturgy and so on needn't be 'cold' and 'distant' necessarily ... although I'd be the first to accept that it often is in some quarters.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
For me, the Eucharist is surely one of the most intimate of acts....
 

---

Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Locking nuns in a convent and telling them to stay there and burn to death instead of leaving?

---

quote:

---

Why should I believe any "you should do this" from the church that invented these anti-God ideas?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Grew up Episcopalian. It turned me until an agnostic. The strong symbolism conveys the inherent message that God is distant and disinterested and values only clergy anyway. (Sometimes I suspect it was intentionally designed to convey that, by self-important clergy.) Periodically I try it again, and within two years have lost all interest in God again because the formal eucharist ceremony instinctively conveys to me "God is distant and boring and utterly uninvolved."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I have no problem with some people finding the ceremony meaningful. But their historical demand that everyone pretend it's meaningful to them or die, shows a strong anti-God pro-political power element to the historical church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Whatever the "historical church" ever said must be questioned, it's as likely wrong as right. Crusades, anyone? Locking nuns in a convent and telling them to stay there and burn to death instead of leaving? Why should I believe any "you should do this" from the church that invented these anti-God ideas?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
What some obviously poor at reflecting God's values historical church says has nothing to do with determining what is real in God's eyes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Belle Ringer:

quote:

---

Depends on what you mean by redefine. Isn't it the church/clergy-centered people who did the redefining <of the word sacrament>?

---

I don't know the historical etymology of the word sacrament. Was the word coined by lay Christians independent of church involvement, and then later on the church/clergy-centered people laid claim to it for their own defined usage?

---

The very concept of "lay Christians independent of church involvement" as anything but lapsed Christians is modern, quite possibly post-modern. Your question is like asking whether chanting was invented by rap musicians, and then later corrupted by the "Gregorians". No, just no. Brain hurts.

---

quote:

---

'And you?' she said, turning to Sam.'For this is what your folk would call magic, I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem to use the same word of the deceits of the Enemy. But this, if you will, is the magic of Galadriel. Did you not say that you wished to see Elf-magic?'

"I did,' said Sam, trembling a little between fear and curiosity....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Yes - the only caveat I have with that is that when something becomes routine, we switch off, and to make the best use of any ritual it should really be as if it were a new experience every time, or at least something special and rare rather than commonplace and easy to get to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
There was a time when there was no church - only a bunch of friends of nominally jewish persuasion wondering what to do, and following instructions they had been left. It strikes me that they would probably not have been quite so heavy on ritual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:


My partner, who is a pagan, disagrees to a significant extent.

t

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zoey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:


My partner, who is a pagan, disagrees to a significant extent.

---

In what way(s)?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
Within the family of the Church certain members have particular responsibilities,but they are not APART from the rest of the family. Bishops,presbyters and deacons a A PART of the family.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forthview:
Although the Catholic and Orthodox church specify seven sacraments we can,if we wish, see many other things as sacraments - even a walk in the park but that is more on an individual level rather than that of the whole Church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Well, maybe - but isn't the point that it's those specific seven things (just two for some Christians) which are seen as sacraments, i.e. as special in some way. I don't get the point of the specialness; why are those 7 or 2 activities singled out as special and distinct from all the other things that Jesus and the early Christians told us to do?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Well, maybe - but isn't the point that it's those specific seven things (just two for some Christians) which are seen as sacraments, i.e. as special in some way. I don't get the point of the specialness; why are those 7 or 2 activities singled out as special and distinct from all the other things that Jesus and the early Christians told us to do?

---

Because these are signs Christ have given to his Church so that we don't have to doubt or fumble in the dark. They come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Because these are signs Christ have given to his Church so that we don't have to doubt or fumble in the dark. They come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
@hatless

For me, the certainty rests in who God is. Roughly:

God, through Christ and through the Church, has said it will be so. Because we know God to be faithful and trustworthy, then we can know with certainty that it will be so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
Will God honour the rote and perfunctory?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
@hatless

For me, the certainty rests in who God is. Roughly:

God, through Christ and through the Church, has said it will be so. Because we know God to be faithful and trustworthy, then we can know with certainty that it will be so.

---

God has said it will be so? I don't think God speaks so unambiguously. You can find a text or two, but there are plenty of texts saying 'I hate, I despise your pilgrim feasts and your burnt offerings.' God's nature is to do a new thing, to surprise. Will God honour the rote and perfunctory?

If God is faithful and trustworthy, then God will honour the Baptist congregation with their Ribena and diced white, or the youth group that happens to have found some fruit cake and Coke. Maybe. Who knows? I think part of our faithfulness is to stay on our toes, watching for the new thing that God is giving or asking.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
...for c. 1500 years, there was a fairly clear message throughout the Church (even given the differences between East and West).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
So, TomM, you wouldn't hang your certainty on one sure fire bit of evidence, but on your reading of a long period of belief?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Because these are signs Christ have given to his Church so that we don't have to doubt or fumble in the dark. They come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality.

---

This is a bold claim and, like hatless, I'd like to see some of the reasoning and evidence behind it. On what basis do you believe that these things (and only these things) are signs given by Christ that come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomM:
@hatless

For me, the certainty rests in who God is. Roughly:

God, through Christ and through the Church, has said it will be so. Because we know God to be faithful and trustworthy, then we can know with certainty that it will be so.

---

God has said it will be so? I don't think God speaks so unambiguously. You can find a text or two, but there are plenty of texts saying 'I hate, I despise your pilgrim feasts and your burnt offerings.' God's nature is to do a new thing, to surprise. Will God honour the rote and perfunctory?

If God is faithful and trustworthy, then God will honour the Baptist congregation with their Ribena and diced white, or the youth group that happens to have found some fruit cake and Coke. Maybe. Who knows? I think part of our faithfulness is to stay on our toes, watching for the new thing that God is giving or asking.

---

But it's not just about Scripture. God did not stop communicating when the canon closed. God has been speaking through the Church - and for c. 1500 years, there was a fairly clear message throughout the Church (even given the differences between East and West).

The Baptists and the youth group are not within this tradition. Others may disagree, but I would suggest these might 'work' but we don't know. Whereas within the Tradition we do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
So, TomM, you wouldn't hang your certainty on one sure fire bit of evidence, but on your reading of a long period of belief?

---

That it's always been believed is proof, I would argue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:
My partner tends to argue that a lot of the theology of sacraments, as of other things, is ex post facto reasoning to put clear blue water between Christians and everyone else, and that a ritual is a ritual, when you get down to it.

I can't really express it in more detail than that.

t

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Because these are signs Christ have given to his Church so that we don't have to doubt or fumble in the dark. They come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality.

---

This is a bold claim and, like hatless, I'd like to see some of the reasoning and evidence behind it. On what basis do you believe that these things (and only these things) are signs given by Christ that come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Teufelchen:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
So, TomM, you wouldn't hang your certainty on one sure fire bit of evidence, but on your reading of a long period of belief?

---

That it's always been believed is proof, I would argue.

---

I think your standard of 'proof' may be lower than many people's, then.

t

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Because these are signs Christ have given to his Church so that we don't have to doubt or fumble in the dark. They come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality.

---

This is a bold claim and, like hatless, I'd like to see some of the reasoning and evidence behind it. On what basis do you believe that these things (and only these things) are signs given by Christ that come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality?

---

Cos He said so?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Because these are signs Christ have given to his Church so that we don't have to doubt or fumble in the dark. They come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality.

---

This is a bold claim and, like hatless, I'd like to see some of the reasoning and evidence behind it. On what basis do you believe that these things (and only these things) are signs given by Christ that come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality?

---

Cos He said so?

---

That depends on believing in the certainty of scripture, and interpreting a given line or two as a promise made to us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
That depends on believing in the certainty of scripture, and interpreting a given line or two as a promise made to us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Because these are signs Christ have given to his Church so that we don't have to doubt or fumble in the dark. They come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality.

---

This is a bold claim and, like hatless, I'd like to see some of the reasoning and evidence behind it. On what basis do you believe that these things (and only these things) are signs given by Christ that come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality?

---

Cos He said so?

---

That depends on believing in the certainty of scripture, and interpreting a given line or two as a promise made to us.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I'm just saying that I don't see how you can base certainty, the guarantee, on a verse of scripture.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I'm just saying that I don't see how you can base certainty, the guarantee, on a verse of scripture.

---

Not by itself, no. Sola scriptura, or the idea that scripture interprets scripture, is a relatively modern error anyway. You need to look to the continuous practice and faith of the Church to see how the scriptures are properly understood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I'm just saying that I don't see how you can base certainty, the guarantee, on a verse of scripture.

---

Not by itself, no. Sola scriptura, or the idea that scripture interprets scripture, is a relatively modern error anyway. You need to look to the continuous practice and faith of the Church to see how the scriptures are properly understood.

---

But why would anyone believe in the church? It's fractured, disputatious and inconsistent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:

quote:

---

Originally posted by hatless:
I'm just saying that I don't see how you can base certainty, the guarantee, on a verse of scripture.

---

Not by itself, no. Sola scriptura, or the idea that scripture interprets scripture, is a relatively modern error anyway. You need to look to the continuous practice and faith of the Church to see how the scriptures are properly understood.

---

But why would anyone believe in the church? It's fractured, disputatious and inconsistent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
So since my previous post it seems a view has emerged - there are 2 / 7 / some other number of sacraments (meaning special rituals or activities through which God is sure to bless / save / restore us) because my particular bit of the church says so. Is that all the argument the pro-sacrament side has?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
How do any of us 'know' anything when it comes to matters of faith?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But what arguments do the 'non-sacramental' side have?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But what arguments do the 'non-sacramental' side have?

---

This side doesn't need an argument. It's the sacramentalist side who are trying to demonstrate something, namely that certain rituals / activities should be considered categorically different from any other rituals / activities we might do. It's like the Russell's Teapot argument - it's the positive that needs to be proven, not the negative.

EDIT - link fail; Wikipedia links with punctuation in them don't seem to work...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:


Churches that teach people to accept whatever they are told by their "betters" and not ask any questions are endangering their people: That's the kind of teaching that leads people to believe they are suppose to have sex with a priest as a "sacrament" if he says so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Is that all the argument the pro-sacrament side has?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
This side doesn't need an argument. It's the sacramentalist side who are trying to demonstrate something, namely that certain rituals / activities should be considered categorically different from any other rituals / activities we might do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Demonstrate how exactly? What is your proposed method of determining it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
But nobody ever argues with solipsists. It's pointless. It's hopeless. One just shrugs, and leaves them to their splendid isolation. So if you insist on being your own master, then enjoy your faith, whatever you decide it will be today.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chris stiles:
The problem is that sacramental thinking is at the end of a trajectory, and if you don't follow along that trajectory it can appear as if someone is pulling rank on you making you do the equivalent of thinking 10 impossible things before breakfast.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
In particular I find SCK's use of Scripture puzzling; it essentially seems to treat the Bible as a magical artifact which dropped on our doorsteps without any mediation whatsoever, and which authenticates itself.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Right, chris; and I think it's worth pointing out that "sola scriptura" means not that we believe nothing that isn't in the Bible, but that we can be required to believe only what can be proved from the Bible.

In particular I find SCK's use of Scripture puzzling; it essentially seems to treat the Bible as a magical artifact which dropped on our doorsteps without any mediation whatsoever, and which authenticates itself. The Church selected, preserved, and transmitted those books; if the Church can be trusted to have done so properly, then the Church's use of it before AD 1910 shouldn't be discounted. Neither should the liturgical practice of that Church be handwaved, as some seem to want to do, since that is the very same milieu in which all those selectors, preservers, and transmitters believed and worked.

---

{Retrieves old fundamentalist hat from attic. Dusts it off.}

I'm no longer fundamentalist. But I still understand it; and I see value in it, and liturgical churches, and many other approaches. So maybe I can shed a little light, or not. YMMV.

I think where RCs* and fundamentalist Protestants don't understand each other is their perspectives on the place and operation of God and people.

The RCC, as I understand it, believes that God gave us the Church, via St. Peter. (And, by default, that's the Roman Catholic Church, from which various other denominations/churches separated. As in John XXIII's reference to "separated brethren".) God gave and gives the RCC the knowledge, rituals, rules, and tools that people need for eternal salvation. There may be salvation outside the Church, but the Church is where you *know* it is happening. Anything else is God's business. The priest mediates between God and humans, especially in the Eucharist, and he is very necessary. Human beings who try to go it on their own are foolish, wrong, and in spiritual danger.

In the fundamentalist Protestant view, from my experience and observation, God is believed to have cut out the middle man. None of the in-between stuff is necessary. God works with individuals directly. "There is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." And the Bible was given directly to human beings--even dictated to scribes. Infallible in the original manuscripts. Anything else--human reason, tradition--is both unnecessary and wrong, even spiritually dangerous. And some view hierarchies/denominations of any kind in the same way.

So both groups believe God loves us, saves us, and interacts with us. The RCC believes that God works directly through it, which then passes down all that's necessary for salvation. Catholics have to accept it and follow it. Fundamentalist Protestants believe that God works directly through people and Scripture, and gives us all that's necessary for salvation. Fund. Protestants have to make a personal decision to accept Christ, and follow Scripture.

As to Scripture**: the fundamentalist Protestant view is that the Bible is basically a user's guide, straight from the Maker. It's all of a piece, even though dictated over a period of time.

As to magic: And this, also, has two sides. Many churches, denominations, and people see the fundamentalist Protestant view of Scripture as magic. But many people see the RC understanding of the Eucharist as magic, too.

IMHO, it depends on what you emphasize. For instance, fundamentalist Protestants are often criticized for taking Scripture literally. But the RCC takes the words of institution for the Eucharist ("this is My body, this is My blood", etc.) more literally than fundamentalist Protestants. It's just a matter of which things you take literally.

Maybe both groups can cut each other some slack? Seeing through a glass darkly, and all that.


*For the purposes of this discussion, I'm equating "the Church" (as some posters referenced it) with the RCC. The simplest approach, I think. No offense to any other Christian Churches/denominations/groups intended.

**It's late, and I can't pull together a summary of the RC view of Scripture.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think that's a fair summary of what might be called the 'polar positions' in those respective traditions, Golden Key -- ultra-traditional Roman Catholicism on the one hand and ultra-conservative Protestant fundamentalism on the other.

As always, though, there is elasticity between those two extremes. Which is a very Anglican thing for me to say of course ...



The Orthodox position is similar to the RCC one only the perception of the role of the Papacy and Magisterium is different - and it's more collegial than the RC 'take' ...

It strikes me that there are anomalies on all sides.

It's often struck me how some Baptists (and no offence intended here to either hatless or Baptist Trainfan) are more than willing to accept - and indeed revel in - the idea that God the Holy Spirit has guided and directed the decisions of their own congregational 'church meeting' but would have an apopleptic fit if asked to accept that God was similarly guiding and directing the work of some Church Council (Big C) or other ...

Somehow, it's alright for them on a local level to claim guidance and direction from the Almighty, but not to extend the same courtesy to anyone else on a broader or more 'universal' level ...



Equal and opposite narks occur at the other end of the spectrum with the RCC and the Orthodox ...

However we cut it, there's always going to be something we're going to bash our shins against ...
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Thanks for the links. I'll have a browse over the next day or two. No thanks to you, however, for the implication of bad faith on my part.

---

quote:

---

Somehow, it's alright for them on a local level to claim guidance and direction from the Almighty, but not to extend the same courtesy to anyone else on a broader or more 'universal' level ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

the action of a special person (the priest) is, at least in normal circumstances, needed to mediate this special meeting with God.

---

quote:

---

So I'll continue to return to the Bible, thanks, while acknowledging and hopefully learning from the example of Christians through the ages. But I won't accept any appeal to the authority of the church, because the church has never spoken with one voice (and even if it did, it might have been wrong IMO).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:

Chris Stiles wouldn't have his more 'modified' sacramental position in the first place if it hadn't drawn from earlier models within Catholicism.

---

Well, yes. No. Maybe. The Reformers (clue in the name) didn't think that everything was wrong with Catholicism. ISTM that just junking sacramentalism altogether because it parts are superficially similar to a view adopted by the RCC would be a fairly reactionary - rather than scriptural - position to take. So I don't think pointing out parallels particular proves anything wrt to sola scriptura.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think it does, but then that's probably a tangent and for another discussion ... preferably not a Dead Horses one ...

Be that as it may, though, I do think you're offering a 'third way' between ... I dunno ... a kind of Chapter 29 paragraph 1.2b line 7 Catholic Encyclopaedia approach and a kind of Zwinglianism taken to an extreme position where everything and anything is suspect apart from one's own particular solipsistic ideas.

Not that I'm accusing anyone here of that ...

There are degrees and nuances between full-on positions on both sides of this debate.

Not all Zwinglian or individualistic 'let's go by the Bible and our own experiences' approaches end up in full-on Illuminism.

But the danger is there.

Which is why I like Tom Smail's analogy about having a whopping big elastic band around our waists which secures us to the mainstream thrust of the historic tradition.
 

---

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :
 
Gamaliel--

Is that like lashing yourself to a ship's mast during a storm?
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
No, it's more like going pot-holing with a whopping big elastic band around your waist secured to a pole in the centre of the main chamber of the cave system you are exploring.

You can venture up side alleys and passages, even clamber down a few chasms or up precipices, but providing you've got your elastic band in place its centrifugal force will keep you tethered and draw you back to the fixed point of the central pole.

Like all analogies, it will only take us so far ...

Before the elastic snaps ...


 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:
but providing you've got your elastic band in place its centrifugal force will keep you tethered and draw you back to the fixed point of the central pole.

---

I think you've got your forces confused there. Centrifugal force is the effect of a rotating object moving away from the axis (it's not even really a force, it's inertia). Centripetal force would be the force pulling back towards the centre. And, your elastic band is exerting a different force entirely.
 

---

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :
 
Gravity is the force you're looking for: tradition is your star around which you orbit, giving you light and enabling you to navigate.

Of course, some people's tradition is more like a supermassive black hole...
 

---

Posted by hatless (# 3365) on :
 
I like the summaries that have been posted recently.

Communion is the most 'traditional' bit of worship for most non-conformists. We might adapt it in various ways and make changes from time to time, but the only reason we do it at all is because of the stories of Jesus doing this sort of thing (quite differently in Luke from Matthew and Mark, and weirdly turned into acted commentary in John - in practice we follow Paul).

We step into the world of Jesus when we have communion, and we're also strongly aware of past communions in our lives, in this particular church, and in other places and times. Many will know Gregory Dix's famous page on 'do this'.

Communion offers us a timeless moment, a transcendent connection, and at the same time it is completely particular, here and now. It makes present and visible the whole of our response to the Gospel - all that making flesh in youth club, food bank and friendship is brought to the heart of worship in bread and wine.

It belongs to no one, because it belongs to all. It is gift and obedience. It is the most inward thing a congregation does, but also the most connected and universal. It is where unity is named and disunity felt most keenly, where the absent and the separated are always prayed for.

Because it is enacted, and because the people present are the actors, it is never the same. It is symbol and so means far more than words can say or a lifetime can appreciate.

These days any congregation will have people who were formerly of other denominations. This is one of the ways that tradition is felt at communion, and helpfully, not as a single voiced monolith half buried in the past, but as a living conversation we can hardly fail to be part of, if we have the least bit of sensitivity.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
I think that's a beautiful and moving summary of how communion is understood - at its best (as it were) within the non-conformist or 'dissenting' tradition, hatless.

I enjoyed reading it.

I don't think the themes you've highlighted are necessarily lost or under-emphasised elsewhere, although obviously those with a more Catholic or sacramental approach are going to take a more 'realised' view of some aspects.

Coming back to the flawed analogy (as all analogies are) of the elastic band and centripetal forces ... (centriPETRINE anyone? ... ) - I was never very good at physics so yes, I was getting my forces mixed up ...

Which is why I ended up doing an arts degree and effectively making myself unemployable ( ) ...

(That last bit isn't strictly true, I'm messin' ...)

I've tried to avoid subjectivity on this thread to some extent - whilst being aware that it's not entirely possible to do so ... but it's pretty obvious that our attitude towards Tradition and traditions depends on where we stand.

For some they are a source of constancy and comfort - 'We won't go far wrong if we observe this, this and this ... or believe this, that and that ...'

For others, as Doc Tor says, the central fastening pole or pillar could end up as some kind of Black Hole or quagmire.

There's always a tension - creative hopefully - between tradition and innovation.

Intriguingly, I've recently commissioned a trainee iconographer to paint me an icon of a South Walian Saint (we were born in the same hospital which is named after this particular Saint). He tells me that whilst there are strict and formal rules on how icons are to be painted, the personality of the iconographer invariably comes through. It is sublimated, certainly, but not eradicated.

Picasso had to know how to draw 'conventionally' before he could break or bend the rules. What was it he said, 'It took me 20 years to draw like Raphael, a lifetime to draw like a child ...'

Or something like that.

Coltrane could obviously play the sax conventionally with consummate skill in order to be able to break free of the accepted forms in his solos ...

So, I tend to see the way we interact with traditions (or Tradition) as a both/and thing ... a certain amount of improvisation is permissible around a central 'theme'.

There is risk involved with that, of course. But there are also risks in not improvising within the over-arching framework ...

There's a balance somewhere.
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
So, we have the authority of Christ in the gospels and His first hand interpreters in a few letters.

Where is the Holy Spirit authoritative? Beyond the supernatural acts concerning Jesus and the apostolic church?
 

---

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
In particular I find SCK's use of Scripture puzzling; it essentially seems to treat the Bible as a magical artifact which dropped on our doorsteps without any mediation whatsoever, and which authenticates itself.

---

I'm trying to walk the line between respecting the Christian witness of the last 2,000 years, and returning to the Bible and the nature of God revealed therein through Jesus.

You and others talk about the example and beliefs of 'the Church' as if there is a thread of absolute consistency over the time since Jesus walked on earth, and that's just not the case. So I'll continue to return to the Bible, thanks, while acknowledging and hopefully learning from the example of Christians through the ages. But I won't accept any appeal to the authority of the church, because the church has never spoken with one voice (and even if it did, it might have been wrong IMO).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
So, we have the authority of Christ in the gospels and His first hand interpreters in a few letters.

Where is the Holy Spirit authoritative? Beyond the supernatural acts concerning Jesus and the apostolic church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
We can have this disagreement because the text of Scripture is patient of more than one interpretation. I freely admit that I am viewing Scripture through the lens of a particular religious tradition. I am not sure if you realize that your view of Scripture is likewise mediated through a particular tradition. There is no such thing as an unmediated text.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
This side doesn't need an argument. It's the sacramentalist side who are trying to demonstrate something, namely that certain rituals / activities should be considered categorically different from any other rituals / activities we might do.

---

[/QUOTE]

One could argue in this instance that it is 'your' side which does need an argument, South Coast Kevin ... it needs to have an argument as to why it has departed from or altered what was the prevailing view within the Christian Church for hundreds of years.

Of course, arguments can be put forward to justify reform and change ... but that's the point. There have to arguments put forward to justify it.

A 'low' or 'non' sacramental approach was a novelty when it first emerged in the wake of the Reformation - the radical reformers taking things further than the Magisterial Reformers, of course.

I'm not debating the rights and wrongs of that, simply saying that it's a pretty big assumption to contend - or apparently contend - that such a position is axiomatic and needs no defence.

And, of course, a similar charge could be levied in the opposite direction ... with the burden of proof for the antiquity of a high view of the sacraments lying with the sacramentalists.

The Sub-Apostolic Fathers seemed to have a pretty 'high' view of the Eucharist, for instance - and also the role of 'elders/bishops' ... although I have heard Baptists come to different conclusions (more in line with their own tradition, of course) as to what the more 'contentious' references in some 2nd century writings mean ...

We pays our money, we makes our choice ...



But from what I can see it's pretty clear that a fairly 'developed' view of particular sacraments and ordinances developed very quickly - and of course, whatever practices any of us have adopted we all claim NT precedent ...

Those of us from a more 'non-conformist' background or tradition aren't going to interpret particular NT references in the same way as those from more sacramentalist traditions - although there will be broad areas of overlap and commonality of course.
 

---

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
So, we have the authority of Christ in the gospels and His first hand interpreters in a few letters.

Where is the Holy Spirit authoritative? Beyond the supernatural acts concerning Jesus and the apostolic church?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
Intriguing in that the lack of role models is normal and feeds back in to Ad Orientem's appeal to the authority of a mythical golden age.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm not referring to any "mythical golden age". I'm referring to the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church which continues to this very day.

---

Yes, you keep saying that. But when you point at some Orthodox person and say "this is a saint, this is exemplary, this is the work of the Holy Spirit", then you are using some standard, some measure, some rule to do so - whether you are aware of that or not. One of our beloved liberal brethren here might point to a rather different Orthodox person, and make the same claim about them - and dispute yours. Then what? How do you show that your selection criteria are the right ones, and theirs are not?

If you point at more people, for example the saints that your church has acknowledged in the past, then you establish a kind of sacred history as the real rule. If you appeal to the majority opinion of the current Orthodox, then you establish a kind of democratic decision process as the real rule. If you appeal to a set of standards as perhaps written down or perhaps orally passed on, then you establish a behavioural codex as the rule. And so on. As you get pressed to state clearly what you mean, your actual rule will start to appear out of the vague, pious musings that you appear to prefer. And if your challenger is mean and will press you hard, then you will have to get down into the nitty-gritty of it all. How do you know that your sacred history was not corrupted? Who says that your democratic process is actually working, and anyhow, since when is truth democratic? How did those standards arise, how do we know that they got passed on faithfully, why can we not now change them?

You have opted for a communion that has led a sheltered life, as far as doctrinal and liturgical challenges are concerned. If nine hundred ninety-nine out of a thousand people say that blue is the best colour, then it is easy to stand with them and declare blue to be obviously the best. In the West it has been colour wars for a long time, and so things are different. You think they are worse, because you see the splashes of red and green and yellow everywhere. Well, all I can say is that you should enjoy your monochromatic time while it lasts. I give it a few decades... Orthodox splendid isolation is pretty much over.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
The thing is, though, the Orthodox could make a similar challenge in reverse, IngoB ... how do you know that your more Papal and Magisterium-based system trumps their more collegial and 'democratic' one?

It seems to me that all of this boils down to what sources of authority we trust the most ... in your case it's Papal authority, in the Orthodox case it's the collegial authority of a group of Autocephalous Churches that together form the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as they see it ...

With the Protestants well ... it goes every which way as the Americans say with a continuum that stretches from a mildly reformed version of what you guys are into on the one hand to various versions of free-for-all illuminism over at the far end ... taking in both woodenly literal and more nuanced interpretations of scripture ...ranging from the inflexibly fundamentalist to the 'so liberal you wonder if they actually believe in anything at all' ...

I agree with you that Orthodox isolationism can't continue. At the moment, they are engaging with the rest of us in the hope that they'll convert us to their way of thinking ...

That'll work with some of us, but not others. Conversely, some of what we do - good, bad or indifferent - will inevitably start to run off on them ...

Then what'll they do ...
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Anyway, coming back to the 'magic' thing - I agree with Sir Pellinore that Fletcher Christian and IngoB - in their different ways - have 'nailed' the difference between the sacraments and magic ...

I also liked the observations Teufelchen made about the differences between Christian and pagan ritual - although I accept that there are going to be a range of views on that one - as exemplified by T's pagan partner.

Along the way, I've also enjoyed reading hatless's observations and South Coast Kevin's challenges ... although I still think he's missing the point to some extent ...



As I probably am too, truth be told ...
 

---

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
... You have opted for a communion that has led a sheltered life, as far as doctrinal and liturgical challenges are concerned. ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
... You have opted for a communion that has led a sheltered life, as far as doctrinal and liturgical challenges are concerned. ...

---

Perhaps they've had bigger things to worry about, sacking by crusaders, subjection to the Turks and persecution by Joseph Stalin to name three of them.

---

Yes, indeed. It is often the case that a community under external pressure "homogenises" internally. If there is a clear and present threat from "them", it is psychologically easy to be "us". But that pressure is largely gone in most places - and in some places in the Middle East, it is now simply squashing the remaining communities into non-existence.

I think in the near future the Orthodox are going to have to deal with just the same shit that the RCC has been dealing with for five centuries in general and five decades in particular. I see no particular reason why they should fare better than the RCC, rather, I see good reasons why they should fare a lot worse.

With one exception though, and it is a curious one. There is among trad RCs a theory, which basically goes like this: it's all due to the liturgy. Consider it like the backbone of the Church. Thus, the theory goes, post Vatican II liturgical revolutionaries broke the backbone of the Church, and she has been flopping around helplessly ever since. Now, in general I have always thought that this theory is bunk, and that it simply is a desperate attempt to assign a monocausal explanation to a complicated problem. And furthermore that it simply reflects the preoccupation of most trads with the liturgy. But of late I've been slightly warming to this point of view. Basically, the more cynical I get about people the more likelihood I assign to something that silly being possibly true. But the Orthodox in some sense represent a social experiment concerning this. I see lots of reasons why they should fall apart along the lines of the RCC over the next few decades. But as of yet, their liturgy seems to remain largely untouched, there seem to be no liturgical revolutionaries poised to take on this particular part of tradition. So if the Orthodox keep going as they are in spite of smacking into Western modernity head on now, then just maybe I have to revise my opinion on this particular trad theory. If the Orthodox hold, then maybe the liturgy is where it's at after all. I can honestly say that this would surprise me, and very much not play to my own preferences (I just have little interest in liturgy). But it is the sort of thing where I could easily be wrong. We will see...
 

---

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :
 
I can't see Orthodoxy having to deal with something equivalent to the Reformation. Having to deal with modernity is something completely different. It's something we all have to do. However, I can't see Orthodoxy being overcome by the spirit of modernism, as happened in the West during the early to mid twentieh century. I agree with the RC Trads on one thing, that the key is the liturgy. It's just ironic that those popes whom they venerate as pillars of orthodoxy layed the path of liturgical destruction for the RC. Both Pius X breviary reform and Pius XII holy week reform set the precedent for what was to come in Vatican II.
 

---

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
That's interesting ... and I've met a scary Society of Pope Pius X chap who was interested in Orthodoxy precisely because it hadn't messed about with its Liturgy ...

I s'pose in a gentle, Anglican way ... with some Orthodox influences ... I'd be inclined to agree that Liturgy does help to preserve, conserve and indeed convey and pass on the Gospel.

However, my default position on Vatican II has generally been that it was a 'good thing' ... but that's very much an outsider's view from within Protestant settings.

However, having seen some of the developments in RC liturgy both online and in real life, part of me sides with those who want to turn the clock back ...


 

---

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


However, my default position on Vatican II has generally been that it was a 'good thing' ... but that's very much an outsider's view from within Protestant settings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I can't see Orthodoxy having to deal with something equivalent to the Reformation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Having to deal with modernity is something completely different. It's something we all have to do. However, I can't see Orthodoxy being overcome by the spirit of modernism, as happened in the West during the early to mid twentieh century.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I agree with the RC Trads on one thing, that the key is the liturgy. It's just ironic that those popes whom they venerate as pillars of orthodoxy layed the path of liturgical destruction for the RC. Both Pius X breviary reform and Pius XII holy week reform set the precedent for what was to come in Vatican II.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


However, my default position on Vatican II has generally been that it was a 'good thing' ... but that's very much an outsider's view from within Protestant settings.

---

Vatican II itself was not a bad thing. It was hijacked by elements within the Catholic church who wanted to remake the church in their own image, and that was a bad thing.

---

quote:

---

Whereas I see a lot more potential for Orthodoxy to be overcome, since the hierarchy is so much weaker and more dependent on the laity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


However, my default position on Vatican II has generally been that it was a 'good thing' ... but that's very much an outsider's view from within Protestant settings.

---

Vatican II itself was not a bad thing. It was hijacked by elements within the Catholic church who wanted to remake the church in their own image, and that was a bad thing.

---

Was it the only time some people tried to remake the church in their own image?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gamaliel:


However, my default position on Vatican II has generally been that it was a 'good thing' ... but that's very much an outsider's view from within Protestant settings.

---

Vatican II itself was not a bad thing. It was hijacked by elements within the Catholic church who wanted to remake the church in their own image, and that was a bad thing.

---

Was it the only time some people tried to remake the church in their own image?

---

Why does that matter?

---

quote:

---

XXV. Of the Sacraments.
SACRAMENTS ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's good will towards us, by the which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm, our faith in Him.

---

 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 
I absolutely love your parallel between the money and the Sacraments.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
I'm preaching in a few weeks, and the lectionary readings are leading me to talk about symbolism (the particular symbols being the rainbow of the Noahic Covenant and baptism). Do you mind if I borrow your money analogy for the childrens address?
 

---

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
Unconvincing if "sacrament" means not just "Jesus, bread, wine" but a whole massive overlay of rigidly narrow list of humans allowed to officiate, specific prayers, hand motions, detailed theology of exactly what happens or doesn't and why.

I was once healed through a Jesus and bread and wine ceremony - at home alone. Many have told me that was not a valid ceremony. Why not? Jesus and bread and wine and an obvious spiritual-caused effect! "Doesn't match our theology which says can't be done by you and can't be done alone and you didn't use all the right prayers." Why should I care about a theology developed to support the political and "spiritual" dominance of the bloody victors of theological disagreements?

Church history is a real good reason to repent of just about everything that history endorsed.

"What works is what we tell you works, you encounter God if we say so, you are utterly dependent on us to connect in important ways with God." No. What a parody of Jesus' revelation of God to us all.

Institutional church may be "nice to have" (I'm increasingly doubting even that), it's definitely not a spiritual essential in any way, especially when it comes to recognizing what are all the real functioning sacraments!
 

---

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Unconvincing if "sacrament" means not just "Jesus, bread, wine" but a whole massive overlay of rigidly narrow list of humans allowed to officiate, specific prayers, hand motions, detailed theology of exactly what happens or doesn't and why.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I was once healed through a Jesus and bread and wine ceremony - at home alone. Many have told me that was not a valid ceremony. Why not? Jesus and bread and wine and an obvious spiritual-caused effect! "Doesn't match our theology which says can't be done by you and can't be done alone and you didn't use all the right prayers." Why should I care about a theology developed to support the political and "spiritual" dominance of the bloody victors of theological disagreements?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Church history is a real good reason to repent of just about everything that history endorsed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
"What works is what we tell you works, you encounter God if we say so, you are utterly dependent on us to connect in important ways with God." No. What a parody of Jesus' revelation of God to us all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Institutional church may be "nice to have" (I'm increasingly doubting even that), it's definitely not a spiritual essential in any way, especially when it comes to recognizing what are all the real functioning sacraments!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
... But if this ceremony was now repeated by someone else somewhere else for someone else, would there be a guarantee that God will bring about the same kind of effect? I doubt that you would want to claim that. ...

---

quote:

---

I'm preaching in a few weeks, and the lectionary readings are leading me to talk about symbolism (the particular symbols being the rainbow of the Noahic Covenant and baptism). Do you mind if I borrow your money analogy for the childrens address?

---

I'm flattered.
Children's talks are what adults enjoy most and understand best.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
You can't claim that either, IngoB. You can say that the bread and wine become the precious body and blood. Beyond that, you cannot guarantee what other consequences may or may not follow from any particular Mass. Nor can anyone else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
You can't claim that either, IngoB. You can say that the bread and wine become the precious body and blood. Beyond that, you cannot guarantee what other consequences may or may not follow from any particular Mass. Nor can anyone else.

---

And how is the former not exactly a case in point for my claim? I didn't say what would be caused by God, only that something specific would be caused without fail. (And incidentally, I explicitly denied physical healing as guaranteed outcome...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
No - there's no guarantee - that would be tantamount to a demand rather than a request. And the predictability of that one effect would tend to make us lose sight of all the other aspects of God, and eventually to take it for granted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:


God keeps His promises, always and forever. Whatever positive or negative spin you want to put on it, the sacraments are as functionally certain as gravity. Indeed, more so, because God never promised us to keep gravity as it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
No - there's no guarantee - that would be tantamount to a demand rather than a request. And the predictability of that one effect would tend to make us lose sight of all the other aspects of God, and eventually to take it for granted.

---

I don't care for your opinion on this matter, I care for God's opinion. God made promises, God keeps His promises, always and forever. Whatever positive or negative spin you want to put on it, the sacraments are as functionally certain as gravity. Indeed, more so, because God never promised us to keep gravity as it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by american piskie:
I don't think one would have to work very hard to read Genesis 9 vv 8--17 (the rainbow) as a promise that there would be no more messing about with the physics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by american piskie:
I don't think one would have to work very hard to read Genesis 9 vv 8--17 (the rainbow) as a promise that there would be no more messing about with the physics.

---

I don't know what God precisely was messing with in walking on water, stopping sun and moon, etc., but it sure sounds to me like some physics was being messed with...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by american piskie:
... but not by God imho, as that would be reneging on the promise, which I take as being part and parcel of the foundational myth that the world created by God provides us with an ordered and rational home.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I don't care for your opinion on this matter, I care for God's opinion. God made promises, God keeps His promises, always and forever.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Belle Ringer:

I was once healed through a Jesus and bread and wine ceremony - at home alone. Many have told me that was not a valid ceremony. Why not? Jesus and bread and wine and an obvious spiritual-caused effect!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin60:
It occurred to me this afternoon as I walked down Dovedale that the wooden, excluding demand of real presence makes Jesus half man half biscuit. Always wondered what that meant.

---

Thank you Martin, that late effort has made my day!

AG
 

---

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :
 
Sacraments are magical. They require a suspension of what we know to be verifiably true in order for them to be real, just like magic. Magic of course can be debunked in a straightforward way, which is probably the real difference. One can always say a sacrament has an unseen reality to it that exists in a dimension we are unable to ascertain or verify empirically.

[ 15. February 2015, 23:26: Message edited by: Alt Wally ]
 

---

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
One can?! One MUST!!!

And Sandemaniac, how will I ever top that?
 

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0