|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Anti-sacramentalism is a denial of the God-bearing character of Creation
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
Doble post - bad form. I hope I'll be forgiven. This one is shorter..
G. K. Cheserton said something like:
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing. They believe in anything".
In a similar vein, perhaps we might say:
"When Christians stop believing in the holiness of the Sacrament, they don't believe that everything is holy. They believe that nothing is."
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
ptarmigan, that prompted this thought in my mind. There is a tendancy in some parts of the church towards non-sacramentalism (ie: putting less emphasis on Communion or Baptism than others, or indeed no emphasis at all). There are very few, if any (I've never met any), who are anti-sacramentalists (ie: denying any possibility of God acting through material means). Maybe my definitions of non- and anti- need tidying up, but there clearly is a spectrum of attitudes to sacraments.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
The only denomination I know of which doesn't celebrate the Eucharist at all is the Salvation Army, for whom I have great respect and affection. And I would argue that in their practice of Breaking Bread and Soup with the poor and homeless, following the example of Christ, they broaden our perspective of what the Eucharist should be.
I wouldn't dream of speculating whether or not Salvationists have a sacramental view of life generally.
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
Thank you Father Gregory. ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clay_Pigeon
Mathematics
# 2516
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
My question is, is the divisiveness in protestantism due to an imperfect ecclesiology or to an inability of imperfect people to practice a perfect ecclesiology?
(Responding to the first question :-) )
I think you overstate your divisiveness just a little too much. In Protestant circles, division appears along the lines of fundementalist/evangelical/liberal more than along lines of denominations. You can hardly refer to it as rampant divisiveness. Indeed, the divisiveness is over issues that have been longstanding differences between different Christian circles -- biblical inerrancy, the necessity and methodology of evangelism, etc.
While my experiences clearly do not define reality, I've been in many cities where a veritable laundry list of evangelical churches (Baptist, Methodist, Grace Brethern, AOG, etc) got along wonderfully, because they generally shared the same theology.
Of course, the next natural question is "Why some many frickin' denominations?!?!?!" I think the different denominations arise for several reasons, of which only one is theology.... and even in those cases, I've found that the compunction has been "I want to have a church that approaches things XYZ way", rather than "All of the other churches are damned, so we need to make a sanctified church to be a light!" Interdenominational cooperation is not uncommon amongst churches that identify themselves similarly on the fundementalist/evangelical/liberal continuum.
--------------------
THAT'S IT! NOW I'M PISSED!. You're so off my prayer list.
-Was Once Troy
Posts: 599 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
OK then Troy, whilst accepting that sections of denominations do get on wonderfully well along the aforesaid spectrum then why do they seem incapable of building that diversity into ONE Church? Isn't it because their mutual ecclesiologies are still invisible ... non-sacramental, (rather than anti-sacramental which is another thing)?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
I find it intriguing that this seems to be an huge issue for everyone except the protestants.
I don't see any reason why belief in the catholic church necessarily implies non-sacramentalism. Unless of course you are suggesting that the sacramental role must be filled by a particular church? If that is the case, we have come full circle to my original statement about presupposing that God is somehow confined to certain elements of creation.
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Scot and Wood agreed that quote:
all material things are equally able to be vehicles of God's presence
I think the suggestion that the Reformers thought that holy water and icons were "equally able to be vehicles of God's presence" as "anything else", or that this tends to be the attitude of most churches not in communion with Rome or Constantinople today is an historical fiction. Calvin would be one example.
I am not saying that all protestants are anti-sacramental, but where are the long lines of protestants that would suggest that the pope or the Patriarch of Constantinople are "equally able to be vehicles of God's presence" as a bible? All three are material things.
In fact, is it not more typical protestant to assert supremacy of The Bible (notice again reference to something whose physical nature and location are difficult to provide and whose existence is in fact the matter of debate)
And can this supremacy not be used to stand in the face of all creation and say "I believe the Bible allows me to "subdue the earth"?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
I think this is why environmentalists are seen as enemies by right-wing Christians. Rather than seeing the situation as we being the stewards for God's lands, they see us as having this place for our playground, to do with as we please. Subdue it, indeed! ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Ley Druid, is there any evidence that non-Protestant Christians have historically been less interested in subduing the earth than Protestants? Especially considering that earth-subduing pre-dates Protestantism, I would doubt it. And you'd be hard pressed to show that Catholics and Orthodox don't see God more in some aspects of creation than in others. Sure, Protestants prefer the Bible to the pope and to eastern patriarchs. Why shouldn't they? Why you find the Bible difficult to locate I don't know. And of course the Reformers had trouble seeing holy water and icons as vehicles of God's presence. The church that was selling them during the Reformers' time was in pretty bad shape.
Though I would certainly put myself on the sacramentalist end of the spectrum, I don't see any need to speak so disparagingly of other people's traditions. While Zwingli's approach certainly may lend itself to a poor view of God's good creation and to the needless and wrong idea of a mind/body division, sacramentalism is equally likely to lend itself to idolatry.
Fr. Gregory: Hmm, you're right. It has been that long. For how much of the intervening period were you absent from the boards? And in case you're wondering, no, I'm not going to let go of this. As long as you keep finding excuses to bag on the west, I will point it out.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
OK then Troy, whilst accepting that sections of denominations do get on wonderfully well along the aforesaid spectrum then why do they seem incapable of building that diversity into ONE Church? Isn't it because their mutual ecclesiologies are still invisible ... non-sacramental, (rather than anti-sacramental which is another thing)?
Not speaking for Troy but for myself, I think that it's because we know, have been taught as a basic principle, and experience, that the church
is one. We know that the church militant is only one aspect, one part of the Church, which happens to be present at this moment in time. We are very aware of the 'communion of saints' which involves the whole Church, past and present.
God has already built the church into one. We can't do what God's Spirit has already done.
The sad part is that there are varying personalities and theological ideas that militate aganst the acknowledgement of the One Church in this present world. Some of it may be to do with 'sacramentalism' in all its various forms, but not all of it. We're not perfect yet, and never will be.... I'm sure God hurts that we diss each other, though.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
RuthW,
do you think you may be over-reacting slightly?
From my experience, I'm sure there are significant streams of modern protestantism - in the UK at least - whose theology is based largely on the Fall and the Atonement, and for whom the Creation and the Incarnation are little emphasised.
Do you not see this too? Churches who think of the earth and humankind as utterly corrupt and depraved, who see the church more like a lifeboat to rescue them from the stormy world rather than the yeast in the dough? That this is associated with all manner of other dualisms? And that these are the same churches which have a lower view of the sacraments? And that there is a connection?
I don't know a lot about RC or Orthodox theology, but for the reasons I explained earier, I think their higher view of the sacraments can lead them to a higher view of God's presence in all. (As you point our it can also become idolatrous, just as love of anything or anyone can).
I note you say you're at the more sacramental end of Episcopalianism, and I note that Fr G was once a UK Anglican. As such he would have had exposure in clergy chapters and so on to extreme protestant (and not very sacramental) UK Anglicans who hold some of the views I have described. You may not have many of the same in Episcopalianism.
Perhaps it would have been fairer of him to have asked "Do you feel that a church which has a lower emphasis on sacramentalism tends also to have a lower appreciation of the God-bearing character of creation" but it's not as snappy.
I think we would all agree that no churches deny creation altogether and no churches are totally unsacramental.
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Ruth
quote:
Fr. Gregory: Hmm, you're right. It has been that long. For how much of the intervening period were you absent from the boards? And in case you're wondering, no, I'm not going to let go of this. As long as you keep finding excuses to bag on the west, I will point it out.
Two weeks only. Provided that I don't breach the 10C's , as far as I am concerned it's fair comment. What is unjust is the way that some folks here reflect back what I say in a distorted and inflated form so as to make of it an easier target. Of course there is also the technique of saying something often enough and people will come to believe it. From now on I am going to mark +ve things I say about the west against -ve things I say about the west. We'll see whether I'm net +ve or net -ve in 3 months time, (after all I've got nothing else better to do with my time!). I hope you've noticed my approbation of Ptarmigan and Ley Druid's comments ... both "westerners."
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Clay_Pigeon
Mathematics
# 2516
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Isn't it because their mutual ecclesiologies are still invisible ... non-sacramental, (rather than anti-sacramental which is another thing)?
The language is a little beyond my training, however if I understand what you are saying correctly...yes....that is it...though (again my training) I don't see the necessary link between an invisible ecclesiology and non-sacramentalism.
(let me flesh this out, just in case I misunderstand you)
Protestants don't see the need to merge into one church in the bureaucratic sense (meshing of our respective organizations), because we already conceive of ourselves as one in the spiritual sense. Remember, to us, a church is an earthly organization with a divine mission... it is what happens naturally when a bunch of believers gather for teaching and worship. Indeed, many Protestants would probably feel stifled at the prospect of trying to merge into one earthly organization. Too many issues of disagreement would have to be resolved democratically or arbitrarily.
Now, don't take my last statement too far. Disagreement does not imply disunity. Rather, it is merely that we see certain aspects of Christian life differently. Disunity only comes into play when those disagreements become so fundemental that both parties have different understandings of what a life in Christ means (example -- many evangelical churches do not have a sense of union with liberal churches).
Frankly, I think that we like the fact that there are so many frickin' denominations and styles of worship. If you look at any subsection of protestantism (along the fundementalist/evangelical/liberal trichotymy I outlined earlier), you would really see something that matches everyones disposition.
Indeed, if there was a comprehensive attempt to merge into one organization...the end result of a single denomination would only exist briefly until a bunch of splinter denominations started from disaffected parties -- a result of our low view of church organizations.
That said, there are an aweful lot of denominations with near duplicate theologies.. a product of historical influences, rather than theoligcal influences.
--------------------
THAT'S IT! NOW I'M PISSED!. You're so off my prayer list.
-Was Once Troy
Posts: 599 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Ruth,
You ask
quote:
is there any evidence that non-Protestant Christians have historically been less interested in subduing the earth than Protestants?
I would also doubt it, but given that our ability to destroy the environment is greater than ever, I think it behooves us to assess the creation-friendliness of our theologies.
quote:
you'd be hard pressed to show that Catholics and Orthodox don't see God more in some aspects of creation than in others
Quite true. I was trying to show this relativism was untenable even as a protestant theology.
quote:
Sure, Protestants prefer the Bible to the pope and to eastern patriarchs. Why shouldn't they?
Let me suggest that if you substitute "pope and eastern patriarchs" with any environmental cause, this attitude becomes much more disturbing. I'm not suggesting you have to be Catholic or Orthodox. But this argument can be used to absolve oneself of responsibility.
quote:
Why you find the Bible difficult to locate I don't know
That physical attributes are unimportant to your concenption of THE Bible is much easier to assert than where it is, how much it weighs etc. etc.
quote:
I don't see any need to speak so disparagingly of other people's traditions
My intent is not to disparage anyone, let alone someone like yourself who has given much to SOF; I contribute nothing, the cheap bastard that I am (I intend to pay dues after my apprenticeship).
quote:
sacramentalism is equally likely to lend itself to idolatry
When has sacramentalism led to idolatry? Does this mean that theology is important to peoples' lives and should be the matter of debate?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ptarmigan:
RuthW,
do you think you may be over-reacting slightly?
If this were a one-time incident, what I've been saying would certainly be an overreaction. But if this were a one-time incident, I wouldn't have bothered to address it.
quote:
From my experience, I'm sure there are significant streams of modern protestantism - in the UK at least - whose theology is based largely on the Fall and the Atonement, and for whom the Creation and the Incarnation are little emphasised.
Do you not see this too? Churches who think of the earth and humankind as utterly corrupt and depraved, who see the church more like a lifeboat to rescue them from the stormy world rather than the yeast in the dough? That this is associated with all manner of other dualisms? And that these are the same churches which have a lower view of the sacraments? And that there is a connection?
I don't know a lot about RC or Orthodox theology, but for the reasons I explained earier, I think their higher view of the sacraments can lead them to a higher view of God's presence in all. (As you point our it can also become idolatrous, just as love of anything or anyone can).
I note you say you're at the more sacramental end of Episcopalianism, and I note that Fr G was once a UK Anglican. As such he would have had exposure in clergy chapters and so on to extreme protestant (and not very sacramental) UK Anglicans who hold some of the views I have described. You may not have many of the same in Episcopalianism.
I am not however a cradle Episcopalian. I was brought up in a church belonging to the American Baptist Convention, and my family heritage is entirely Mennonite. I am quite familiar with "extreme Protestant" views, and regularly refresh this familiarity with visits to my parents and the church of which they have been pillars for lo these many years, with less frequent visits to other very Protestant churches attended by various members of my extended family.
Certainly I know Protestants who regard the church as a shelter rather than yeast; I know very high-church Anglicans in my own parish who have the same misguided view. I haven't noticed that sacramentalism is a natural guard against this problem.
I do think that the Baptists and Mennonites I know are more distrustful of the world than the Episcopalians I know. But I don't think that this is co-terminous with a disregard for God's creation. When they talk about "the world" as if it were a foreign place they have to visit, they mean the aspects of contemporary culture they find immoral, wrong, etc. And when I read the newspapers, I frequently think they've got a point.
I have not found in general that sacramentalist Anglicans (including in the US), Catholics or Orthodox have "a higher view of God's presence in all" than do non-sacramentalist Protestants. The Baptists and Mennonites I know actually tend to have a very high view of God's presence in people, and a strong sense of God's work being done through themselves. They are probably less likely to be environmentalists in the generally understood sense, but in practice I think their churches overall are no more wasteful of God's creation than sacramentalist churches.
The lowest view of creation I have ever heard expressed came from an Orthodox priest, whose disdain for the physical world, especially the body, shocked me. He was addressing a small group, so I had the opportunity to ask him about it (yes, I was much nicer than I have been in this thread) and he was quite vehement on the subject. And he claimed to be following in the tradition of the Russian Orthodox mystics whose works he was engaged in translating into English.
quote:
Perhaps it would have been fairer of him to have asked "Do you feel that a church which has a lower emphasis on sacramentalism tends also to have a lower appreciation of the God-bearing character of creation" but it's not as snappy.
It's also not as condescending nor as prejudicial.
quote:
I think we would all agree that no churches deny creation altogether and no churches are totally unsacramental.
I certainly agree with you here. But a lot of churches wouldn't call it that, just because of the associations the word "sacrament" has.
Fr. Gregory: Sure, it's fair comment. I have not to my knowledge distorted or inflated anything you've said, and you're hardly one to talk about others using the technique of saying something often enough so that people will believe it. I have not been keeping score as to how often you've slammed the west, as I imagine it might annoy me even more if I did so.
And of course you've approved of Ley Druid and ptarmigan's points - they have not voiced views that support the position taken by churches spawned by the western Reformers!
The thing is, I agree with you on the rightness and goodness of sacramentalism; I chose to be an Episcopalian in part because of the sacramentalism of the Episcopal Church. And I agree with what you say about anti-sacramentalism:
quote:
Anti-sacramentalism denies that materiality can be a vehicle of divine encounter and grace
But then you went on to say,
quote:
Certain Christian traditions (let the reader understand) are uncomfortable with the idea that material things, (bread, wine, oil, water, flesh, matter etc. etc.), can be vehicles of the presence of God.
I think this is a mischaracterization of the Anabaptist tradition. My experience of the churches that sprang from the Anabaptists is that the Christians in them are uncomfortable with the specific things - bread, wine, oil - identified by the Orthodox, Catholic, etc. traditions as being the vehicles of the presence of God. But that God is present in the material world is something they would never deny. If anything, as they do not specify certain things as being special or particular vehicles of God's presence, they tend to be more able to see a variety of material things as vehicles of God's presence. Hence my agreement with ptarmigan that there are no non-sacramental churches.
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
given that our ability to destroy the environment is greater than ever, I think it behooves us to assess the creation-friendliness of our theologies.
I agree entirely. If we go a step further and assess the creation-friendliness of our churches, homes, businesses, transport, etc., we'll be even better off.
quote:
I said:
you'd be hard pressed to show that Catholics and Orthodox don't see God more in some aspects of creation than in others
quote:
You responded:
Quite true. I was trying to show this relativism was untenable even as a protestant theology.
Then I'm not sure I'm following you. I haven't heard this relativism propounded from Protestant pulpits, which has been my chief source of information about Protestant theology.
quote:
I said:
Sure, Protestants prefer the Bible to the pope and to eastern patriarchs. Why shouldn't they?
quote:
You responded:
Let me suggest that if you substitute "pope and eastern patriarchs" with any environmental cause, this attitude becomes much more disturbing. I'm not suggesting you have to be Catholic or Orthodox. But this argument can be used to absolve oneself of responsibility.
Yes, it could. But turn it around another way. Say one were to prefer one's bishop or patriarch to the Bible? I find that just as disturbing. (Not that I don't like our bishop, mind you, but I'd far rather read the Bible every day in my devotions than something from the bishop.)
This I didn't follow - would you mind restating?:
quote:
That physical attributes are unimportant to your concenption of THE Bible is much easier to assert than where it is, how much it weighs etc. etc.
As to this ...
quote:
My intent is not to disparage anyone, let alone someone like yourself who has given much to SOF; I contribute nothing, the cheap bastard that I am (I intend to pay dues after my apprenticeship).
... I don't think you've disparaged me at all, and even if you never give a penny you will have made a contribution to the life and community of the ship by posting. I give a lot of time here, yes - but I am a complete leech in some other areas of my life. Learning where I can and should give and when I can and should receive is an ongoing project.
But I do think there has been some unwarranted disparaging of Protestant traditions on this thread.
quote:
When has sacramentalism led to idolatry? Does this mean that theology is important to peoples' lives and should be the matter of debate?
According to the Reformers, sacramentalism led to idolatry in the medieval and Renaissance church. I'm sure there could still be plenty of debate about that. However, sacramentalism has led to idolatry for some people in my own parish, who care more for Our Sacred Objects in and of themselves, as objects, than they do for the God for which those things are a vehicle or for the people with whom they are supposed to be worshipping.
I do not for a moment think that sacramentalism necessarily leads to idolatry, just that it is a potential pitfall. The first commandment isn't there because God is afraid he doesn't photograph well.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
I don't hear much from protestant pulpits, so I have to take protestants at their word when they say quote:
That's a caricature at best of a healthy protestant viewpoint, which instead believes that the sacramental material things are no more able to be vehicles of God's presence than anything else. Scot
Ruth said something similar: quote:
If anything, as they do not specify certain things as being special or particular vehicles of God's presence, they tend to be more able to see a variety of material things as vehicles of God's presence.
I think rather, protestants do deny God's presence in some material things (holy water & icons) and "specify certain things as being special" such as a bible. How has this led to a denial of the God-bearing character of creation? How about four centuries of Christian art desecrated by Christians in the name of God? Is it really unwarranted to ask what is it in protestantism that could so deny the God-bearing in those works of art?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
What a thoughtful post RuthW.
You obviously know far me about the history of debate on these boards, and therefore more able than I to interpret Fr G's:
"Certain Christian traditions (let the reader understand)".
As you say, in the context of this thread alone, he could be referring to any anti-sacramentalist tradition within any part of the church (East or West).
Indeed the whole discussion would be enhanced if someone could describe anti-sacramentalism a bit more fully, and give examples of theological traditions which are anti-sacramental.
I do apologise to both you and Fr G for speculating (from very litttle information) about how you might have come to your views. Clearly you (RuthW) are more familiar than I guessed with parts of protestantism and can even spring to the defence of a tradition you have left!
I think we agree (and Ley Druid reminded us) that there are strands of protestantism which have the sort of tendency Fr G is talking about. Not just individuals but theological streams. I'm not well enough educated in RC theology or Orthodox theology to know whether the same sort of strands exist there.
I think we also all agree that there are many in protestantism who do accept that God is present in the whole of creation. In fact I'm sure pretty well everyone accepts it in principle; the question is to what extent has this intellectual acceptance seeped down into their very being, and led to a life enjoying and celebrating the presence of God in all.
If a "high" sacramental tradition leads to people thinking and behaving as though God is **confined** to holy places and to consecrated bread and wine and the lives of Saints, then we might have evidence against Fr G's claim. (The "sacramentalism leads to idolatry" theme). If instead the reverence for certain things which are special focuses of holiness helps people to see the whole of creation as God-infused, then Fr G's claim is supported.
My past experience of trying to believe God was in all and through all when worshipping in traditions which put very low emphasis on the sacraments is that it was difficult. This is partly of course a temperamental thing; born pessimists have a hard job finding God in anything. But I do think that world-affirming and matter-affirming forms of worship help.
Maybe we should agree that:
"Aa high view of the sacraments can - at its best - help people recognise God in creation at large, and a low view of the sacraments can - at its worst - make it difficult for people to recognise God in His creation".
Finally, I wonder whether I am one of those accused of "unwarranted disparaging of protestant traditons on this thread". Presumably it is acceptable to critique strands of theological thought on the Ship. What constitutes unwarranted I wonder?
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
What Ptarmigan said!
Ruth ... to deny particularity ... this bread, this wine, this oil etc., is to enter a mindset that finds no place for the incarnation except in an abstract sense .... this flesh, this man, this church, this book etc. I just do not buy into the approach that says that since everything is sacramental, THEREFORE we cannot accept particularity. A refusal of particularity (should I kiss my wife) ends up as a more general attitude ... where it counts, in the heart. (I do not deny that you belong to a contrary tradition, so once did I ... but that's not the issue here is it?)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
What Ptarmigan said!
Ruth ... to deny particularity ... this bread, this wine, this oil etc., is to enter a mindset that finds no place for the incarnation except in an abstract sense ....
*cough* boll *cough* ocks *cough*
How does that follow logically?
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Amongst those Reformed traditions that take the material realm to furnish sacramental symbols rather than vehicles of God's Presence (both human and non-human) in the manner of Zwingli the creation can never be a place of theophany. How on earth (literally) this can be squared with the theophanies of both Old and New Testaments beats me. That's what I am getting at.
I strongly suspect that Zwingli saw creation as a place of theophany through the Incarnation. God made man in a real body. That is the anchor that holds Christianity to the material world and the glories of creation, that God the Son glorified it by being part of it.
No Christianity that remains completely Christian can possibly deny that.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Ken
IF Zwingli believed that, that's fine.
Dear Wood
(1) What is true of all members of a set must be true of each member of a set, (eg., a set of whole numbers must have no members with fractions).
(2) Particular members of a set may have properties of a different order than others members of the set but of the same kind, (eg., a set of even numbers has a commonality [divisibility by 2] but different values.
(3) To deny the possibility of different values within a universal set is to infer a universe which is dead. To deny commonality to all members of a universal set is a contradiction in terms.
Therefore, different values within a commonality may and and indeed must exist in a universal set with life bearing potential.
So in common parlance ... everything, despite being in common isn't the same.
Certain particular values acquire a significance in the religious sphere by being "set aside" ... consecrated. That is how we may know that God, ourselves and the Universe are real. Cognition without this would be impossible. Cognition attempted without this leads to reductionism, which is the mother of agnosticism and spiritual death.
Any attempt at the universal without the particular and the particular without the universal is doomed to failure.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Wood
(1) What is true of all members of a set must be true of each member of a set, (eg., a set of whole numbers must have no members with fractions).
(2) Particular members of a set may have properties of a different order than others members of the set but of the same kind, (eg., a set of even numbers has a commonality [divisibility by 2] but different values.
(3) To deny the possibility of different values within a universal set is to infer a universe which is dead. To deny commonality to all members of a universal set is a contradiction in terms.
Therefore, different values within a commonality may and and indeed must exist in a universal set with life bearing potential.
But that makes assumptions about the nature of the universe - no one is saying that everything is the same, simply that it has the same potential for theophany.
Anyway, again, I don't see how your logic follows.
Do you not see the big old leaps you're making?
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Because I do not believe that God is any more present in 'consecrated' bread, water, wine, salt, places of worship, than any other bit of creation, that leaves me with more space to recognise God's reflection, creativity, presence in the whole universe.
We used to lock the door of the church after congregational worship just so that people would be reminded that as Christians, they carried God within them, they were going to meet God in the daily tasks and chores, in other people and other aspects of God's creation.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Ley Druid, you are taking the excesses of two specific historical upheavals and using them to define the nature of the protestant approach to creation. Not only does this lead you to a false conclusion, but it is also a line of reasoning which might not favor your own tradition if it were applied in reverse.
Fr. Gregory, the problem with your logical proof is that it assumes a steady state universe. You state that "to deny the possibility of different values within a universal set is to infer a universe which is dead." I think it would be more accurate to say that to deny the possibility of changing values within a universal set is to infer a universe which is dead.
Everyone here (I think) has affirmed a belief that God is present in material creation. Many of us have agreed that He is "more present" in some things at some times. The disagreement is over whether those "special things" are the same for all people in all places at all times.
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Certain particular values acquire a significance in the religious sphere by being "set aside" ... consecrated. That is how we may know that God, ourselves and the Universe are real. Cognition without this would be impossible. Cognition attempted without this leads to reductionism, which is the mother of agnosticism and spiritual death.
We only know that *we* are real because some things are consecrated? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Scot
I stand corrected on changing values for members of the universal set .... even the value for "c" may not now be constant. I don't think it changes my argument though.
quote:
The disagreement is over whether those "special things" are the same for all people in all places at all times.
They are the same when Christ COMMANDS them until he comes again, (the Eucharist for example ... "DO THIS ...").
Even if they are variable they are still identifiable concrete and particular even if within a limited time / space frame.
Dear Golden Key
quote:
We only know that *we* are real because some things are consecrated?
Our primal parents imparted SIGNIFICANT but not ontological (vs. extreme nominalism) reality to the animals and plants by giving them different names.
Names are values and more especially when they move us from "bread" to "body of Christ." This is the setting aside that imparts a new "reality." This, of course, is not Protestant eucharistic theology (on the whole, excepting some Lutherans and some Anglicans). But there again I am not a Protestant Chrristian.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
They are the same when Christ COMMANDS them until he comes again, (the Eucharist for example ... "DO THIS ...").
Christ indeed did command us to "do this..." and we do it. Even protestants.
What Christ did not do was define the sacraments (I knew this was about the sacraments) as being more "God-bearing" than any other part of creation. Nor did He define what exactly the ritual was to do, other than remind us of Him.
You seem to be making the assumption that because Christ considered the eucharist to be important enough to command repetition, it is somehow different than other elements of creation. I do not believe that this assumption is demonstrably any more valid than assuming that anything which reminds us of Christ is equally "special".
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
[QB]They are the same when Christ COMMANDS them until he comes again, (the Eucharist for example ... "DO THIS ...").
But all He said was "do this in memory of me".
Do what? Eat together? Share bread and wine?
The interpretation of that is surely somewhat open.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Scot said: quote:
Ley Druid, you are taking the excesses of two specific historical upheavals and using them to define the nature of the protestant approach to creation. Not only does this lead you to a false conclusion, but it is also a line of reasoning which might not favor your own tradition if it were applied in reverse
I am trying to show the historical consequences of historical applications of protestant thought, ask was asked of me. Faults in my tradition do not justify faults in yours.
I am glad to see you moving away from the untenable position of quote:
all material things are equally able to be vehicles of God's presence.
to something more like quote:
He is "more present" in some things at some times.
In choosing to do away with historical, material sacramental traditions, some protestants in fact have denied, and continue to deny quote:
that materiality can be a vehicle of divine encounter and grace
in those particular sacramental traditions.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Ley Druid, my position has not changed. My two statements that you quoted are not contradictory.
You are correct that some protestants have denied that materiality can be a vehicle of divine encounter and grace. I believe that you are incorrect when you say that they continue to do so (excepting the odd lone wolf or fringe group). Are you not actually objecting to the fact that many protestants deny that the presence of God is somehow limited to those objects which you define as sacraments? This thread started out claiming to be about all of creation as sacrament, but the scope is narrowing rapidly.
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
The idea of "limitation" keeps on popping up yet I am totally bewildered by this. For Christians of a sacramentalist position the sacraments make particular and accessible what we all know to be universal and general. It seems to me that an anti-sacramentalist approach (the question) is a disembodied theoretical construct.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
The limitations keep popping up because they are the real issue here. Perhaps an illustration will help.
Yesterday (Sunday) at many churches around the world, God was present in the material form of consecrated wafer and wine. At my church we had bread and juice which was not specially blessed by anyone. Was God equally present in my bread and your wafer?
Lets take it one step farther. On the wall in front of my desk is a smiley face. Suppose that during my lunch hour today I meditate on that smiley face, reflecting on the joy of the risen Savior. Can God be as present in my smiley face as he was in your consecrated wafer and wine?
If yes, then where is the distinction between the sacramentalist and the non-sacramentalist?
If no, then we have successfully illustrated why the question of limitations is recurring.
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Scot,
At the point when God is quote:
"more present" in some things at some times.
It cannot be that quote:
all material things are equally able to be vehicles of God's presence.
Things can't be both more able and equally able at the same time.
quote:
Yesterday (Sunday) at many churches around the world, God was present in the material form of consecrated wafer and wine. At my church we had bread and juice which was not specially blessed by anyone. Was God equally present in my bread and your wafer?
Do you deny that many protestants explicitly deny that God was present in your bread the same way as the Catholic quote:
'magic' understandings of eucharist - Jengie
Speaking in practical, physical,concrete terms, I do not deny the God-bearing possibility of your happy face, BUT if you didn't tell anybody what was going on would anybody know? I don't have to tell anybody what's going on at mass. The reality of the situation doesn't depend on me at all. Its much bigger than me. I find the individualism in protestantism disturbing, because it seems to allow an individual such control over creation.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Daisymay
Would you extend the same logic to the incarnation?
Fr. Gregory,
The man Jesus totally glorified God and reflected God. Jesus is our example in this as in all things.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Ley Druid wrote:
quote:
At the point when God is "more present" in some things at some times, it cannot be that all material things are equally able to be vehicles of God's presence. [format condensed by scot]
That is not a true statement. In a cup on my desk I have an assortment of pencils. I am writing with the red pencil. The pencils are all equally able to be vehicles of my words. My words are more present in the red pencil than in the others.
quote:
Do you deny that many protestants explicitly deny that God was present in your bread the same way as the Catholic
That is not the question. The question was whether you, speaking as a sacramentalist, believe that God can be equally present in either object. You indicate that God may be present in my smiley face, but that the value of His presence is somehow diminished because it is not widely known. So I ask, what is the distinction between the sacramentalist and the non-sacramentalist? Surely it must be more than broad communication?
quote:
I find the individualism in protestantism disturbing, because it seems to allow an individual such control over creation.
I think we may have finally reached the root of the matter. It was not protestantism which allowed an individual control over nature. It was the Creator.
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
quote:
I think we may have finally reached the root of the matter. It was not protestantism which allowed an individual control over nature. It was the Creator.
We certainly have. I said quote:
I find the individualism in protestantism disturbing, because it seems to allow an individual such control over creation.
It seems to, but that is an illusion of protestant thought. We are only a part of creation. We do not control nature, nature controls us. I think it bodes very ill for poor old earth when we hear things like quote:
It was not protestantism which allowed an individual control over nature. It was the Creator.
It seems we can thank protestantism, or at least some protestants for teaching us this.
Scot,
You condensed my quote so much as to eliminate the obvious self-contradiction. Let me repeat it quote:
Things can't be both more able and equally able at the same time.
I'm not too good with the witty quotes, but I feel now might be a good time for the immortal words of our illustrious President.
"That depends what your definition of is is" -- Bill Clinton
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
They are the same when Christ COMMANDS them until he comes again, (the Eucharist for example ... "DO THIS ...").
Note he did NOT say fight about it, or shut each other out of it!
(pet peeve)
BTW, I've attended many different types of churches and chosen to receive communion, regardless of their particular rules.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by golden_key:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
They are the same when Christ COMMANDS them until he comes again, (the Eucharist for example ... "DO THIS ...").
Note he did NOT say fight about it, or shut each other out of it!
I've often wondered whether "Do this as oft as ye drink it" means as often as you drink the cup of blessing, i.e. every Passover.
--------------------
All shall be well. And all shall be well. And all manner of things shall be well. (Julian of Norwich)
Posts: 1080 | From: UK - Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Daismway
... but the incarnation is more than reflecting God or glorifying God ... in Christ God Himself assumed our humanity. In this case the particular in identifiable and unrepeatable.
Dear Ptarmigan
quote:
I've often wondered whether "Do this as oft as ye drink it" means as often as you drink the cup of blessing, i.e. every Passover.
This only applies to the Synoptics. In John's Gospel the timimg is wrong and the Last Supper is not, strictly speaking, a Passover Meal ... although on balance I think we can regard it as such. Anyway, the Eucharist is not simply a repetition of the Last Supper / Passover ... it has its own evolving format. All the Eucharistic prayers (and the New Testament itself of course) are post-Easter.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Originally posted by Ley Druid: quote:
Scot,
You condensed my quote so much as to eliminate the obvious self-contradiction. Let me repeat it quote:
Things can't be both more able and equally able at the same time.
You are correct, I did just that. The reason I did it was because your statement was a blatant misquotation of my own statements. Rather than refute it directly, I just left it out.
Your statements regarding individualism seem to be logically flawed. If individuals were not allowed control of nature, how is it that "poor old earth" is in such danger from us? Conversely, if there is a danger of harm to creation, then we apparently do have a measure of control?
You managed to skip lightly over my repeated question about sacramentalist vs. non-sacramentalists. You have admitted to the potential for the presence of God in any material object. If we are in agreement on that point, what basis do you have for claiming that sacramentalists are more creation-friendly?
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Ill leave the answeing to Ley Druid Scot tempted thiough I am. However, I will say this one thing ... it's a mighty big jump to say that individuals are capable of sinning to suggesting that sin in the world is merely the aggregate of what individuals do. You will also recall that this started off by your suggestion that individuals, so to speak, make the rules. I decide that this smiley face stimulates my faith in the resurrection; ergo it is sacramental. Our point about recognition is that sacraments are community signs of a living Presence in our midst not a private cipher. Language by its very nature, (and symbols, art etc), are social. Subjectivity is our apprehension of reality in community ... not our definition of it in private.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Daismway
... but the incarnation is more than reflecting God or glorifying God ... in Christ God Himself assumed our humanity. In this case the particular in identifiable and unrepeatable.
Fr. G,
I'm not talking about "the incarnation" as a theory. I'm talking about "the man Jesus." He perfectly did what we all do imperfectly.
He laid aside his "Godness", his deity, and became truly and wholly human, and in that state, Jesus showed us, and was, a human being doing what we are all created to do - but we mess up and dirty the reflection so it's smudged.
And it's not unrepeatable for when we see him face to face, we shall become like him.
And I can't pronounce my name when you spell it that way. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
While I am certainly a sacramentalist, I think the subject can get bogged down with definitions, and I also think there's a compromise which can satisfy anyone who values the Eucharist. The medival depictions of bleeding wafers and such excesses led to the Catholic definition of the "double miracle" of transubstantiation. The first miracle being that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ, and the second miracle is that they still have the form and taste of bread and wine.
Such mental gymnastics can take on the air of mind bending mumbo jumbo. When people gather in Christ's name, in obedience to His request, He promised that He would be present. He is therefore present in the bread and wine of communion. But to return to my proposed compromise to these theological arguements:
There are four stages to the Communion.
1. Offeratory
2. Consecration
3. Fracture
4. Communion.
At the offeratory, as we sing the hymn and dig in our pockets, we should be offering ourselves on the alter with the gifts, with all our sinfulness and weakness as a sacrifice to God.
At the Consecration, we should consecrate our lives to God's service, to the advancement of His kingdom on earth.
At the Fracture, we should be in union with Jesus in His broken body and poured out blood and mindul of our need to sacrifice ourselves to the Father s He did.
At the Communion, we cement our will to the will of God, vowing to walk steadfastly in His ways and saying "cleanse me and I will sin no more."
If we approach the Eucharist with this level of awe at God's total holiness and our own unworthiness, a reverence for Christ's passion for our salvation, and a desire to walk with God all the days of our lives, then He is truly present with us, whatever debnomination we belong to and whatever our view of sacramentalism
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Fr. Gregory, you started this thread arguing for the God-bearing character of creation? Then you took the position that the sacraments make particular and accessible the universal and general. Now you are arguing that unless a community (which one?) decides that an object is a sacrament, then it is not.
I am finding it hard to follow the bouncing ball.
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
When people gather in Christ's name, in obedience to His request, He promised that He would be present. He is therefore present in the bread and wine of communion.
Why do you think He is present (mainly or only?) in the bread and wine?
Why not present by faith through His Spirit in the hearts of the believers?
Jesus said, "When two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them." So perhaps we need to be there, but not necessarily bread and wine.
I don't think God is more present in a communion service than in any other type of service. And at times I meet God consciously or unexpectedly all over the place.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
daiseymay
I have the utmost respect for the Quaker view that everything is a sacrament, and indeed if people did take all life as a sacrament we would live in a holy world.
But I also belive in the "set apart". Paul in His Epistles said he was "set apart" for the gospel. Priesthood is about consecration, consecration of that life to do God'a will on earth and the setting apart of certain objects for a holy purpose. This in no way diminishes the holiness of all matter, nor the priesthood of all believers.
When an ordained(consecrated) priest consecrates natural objects such as water, bread and wine, they are set apart for God's purposes and for the sanctification of all who come within their presence. So those people and things which are set apart for God, contain His presence within them by means of that onsecration.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
