|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Anti-sacramentalism is a denial of the God-bearing character of Creation
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Scot,
The assertion quote:
all material things are equally able to be vehicles of God's presence
is NOT reconcileable with sacramentalism. A person encounters a finite number of material things. Those things which he/she doesn't encounter can't be vehicles of God's presence in that person's life. Materiality is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for such a vehicle of God's presence. Something very rarely encountered, therefore, would not be as able to be a vehicle of God's presence in many people's lives as something commonly encountered. Something that only one person ever encountered would not be able to be a vehicle of God's presence in the life of anybody else. Things are clearly not equally able to be vehicles of God's presence, and that doesn't mean I'm limiting God, its the finite humans that are limited. To accept sacramentalism, you have to accept the limited nature of humans and creation.
In choosing to do away with historical, material sacramental traditions, some protestants in fact have denied, and continue to deny that materiality can be a vehicle of divine encounter and grace in those particular sacramental traditions. It is untrue to suggest everything is equally able to be sacramental.
quote:
If individuals were not allowed control of nature, how is it that "poor old earth" is in such danger from us? Conversely, if there is a danger of harm to creation, then we apparently do have a measure of control?
Keepin' it real...
Whatever effects we may exert on the earth, I don't see how we control it, or how it is helpful to think that we do. I do think our activities can endanger the earth, and especially with people who advance ideas such as yours.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Sorry, I had to be physically present with my girlfriend.
quote:
what basis do you have for claiming that sacramentalists are more creation-friendly?
Since non-sacramentalists reduce the sacramentality of material things to a fictional equality, they have no trouble setting themselves as arbiters of what will be sacramental in their lives. Once they control which elements of creation God is using, they can neglect those He isn't. Sacramentalists can obviously also be anti-environmental, but never by suggesting they are the arbiters of what is sacramental or not.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
But Ley Druid, it works just as easily the other way around. Sacramentalist traditions designate certain things as vehicles of God's presence, while non-sacramentalists traditions by not doing so could be said to be allowing their adherents to be more open to seeing what things God is actually choosing to use to reveal God's presence.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Ley Druid, you previously said that you do not deny the God-bearing possibility of my happy face. Now you say
quote:
The assertion "all material things are equally able to be vehicles of God's presence"
is NOT reconcileable with sacramentalism.
Unless my smiley face has received some special dispensation to be a sacrament, your statements are contradictory.
quote:
Once [nonsacramentalists] control which elements of creation God is using, they can neglect those He isn't. Sacramentalists can obviously also be anti-environmental, but never by suggesting they are the arbiters of what is sacramental or not.
The glaring flaw in your argument is that it is the sacramentalists who believe that some portions of creation are more special than others. It is the nonsacramentalists who believe that all elements of creation have equal potential as vehicles of God's presence. Thus, if anti-environmentalism was to be linked to sacramentality (an absurd proposition in the first place), then it would be the sacramentalists who should be watched most closely.
--------------------
“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
Ley Druid,
You are using the sort of reasoning that says that nothing exists unless a human being is collecting its sense data. Remember the doggerel?
"There was a young man who said,'God
"Must find it exceedingly odd,
"When he sees that the tree just ceases to be,
"When nobody's walking in quad.'"
And the answer, which some other metaphysician somewhere must hold in their memory, (so please post it - it's irritating me not to rememberit - but it's out there somewhere) is God saying that the tree is always there because it's in God mind. It finishes
"Yours sincerely, God."
Any part of the creation is constantly in God's mind, being sustained actively, or it would cease to exist. So each and every part, whether present to a human being, whether ever visited by a human being is sacramental. It doesn't matter whether its potential is realised - it just is.
I'm aware that this sounds like the 'sacramentalists' who reserve the elements, and I think they must have done this by cottoning on to the sacredness of the whole creation and tranferred it to the consecration that PaulTh talks of.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inanna
Ship's redhead
# 538
|
Posted
quote:
"Dear Sir, your astonishment's odd,
For I'm always about in the Quad;
And that's why the tree,
Continues to be,"
Signed "Yours faithfully, God."
Inanna
Limerick fan rather than metaphysician...
--------------------
All shall be well
And all shall be well
And all manner of things shall be well.
Posts: 1495 | From: Royal Oak, MI | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inanna
Ship's redhead
# 538
|
Posted
... but one with a bad memory.
The correct last two lines should of course be:
quote:
This tree that you see
Shall continue to be
Observed by, yours faithfully, God."
Inanna
correcting herself before anyone else does!
--------------------
All shall be well
And all shall be well
And all manner of things shall be well.
Posts: 1495 | From: Royal Oak, MI | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Fr. G, would you help me out, please?
I’ve been trying to work out, since the opening post, what exactly you want. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Frankly, it came across like an exam question. And I keep feeling that we’re supposed to come up with The Right Answer. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Are you concerned about the mess we’ve made of the environment?
Are you concerned that non-Orthodox are going down the wrong path?
Do you vehemently disagree with non-Orthodox theology?
Do you love God and the Eucharist so much that you can’t bear for anyone to think of them (in your opinion) less dearly than you do?
I’ve seen traces of all of these in your posts on this thread. But—IMVHO—they seem like a Rubik’s Cube, with the colors/ideas flashing around.
If you’d simplify things briefly by putting each of the colors on their proper sides, so we can see your point, it might help the discussion.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.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
|
|
blackbird
Shipmate
# 1387
|
Posted
daisymay, i agree with everything you've said.
paulth, i would argue that my experience of daily morning prayer accomplishes many of the criteria you set forth for communion. i try to take that mindset into my experience with people in my community, i don't keep it to myself. the difference is i don't have a single moment that i can point to and say, ah, i've done my sacrament i can get on with other things now.
to continue my lone-wolf rant (though wolves are very communal, they do go off by themselves from time to time just to be apart, and that lonesome howl is how they stay connected to their pack, according to barry lopez who wrote a lovely book, Of Wolves and Men), anyone who has experienced communal sacrament, for years, with indifferent or, if you can imagine it, power-mongering christians knows how difficult it is to subscribe to the idea that just because someone is present means they revere the idea of sacrament.
though i was raised episcopalian, most of my experiences were w/r. catholics, including my mother and husband and their relatives, who are also clearly able to separate real life from their church duties.
or maybe you've known christians who were proud of their "faithfulness" and judged non-churchgoers on that one exhibition. yet the attitude in many of the focused places i visited in my quest for a living Presence was one of sly in-jokes implying "those other, lesser christians, just don't get it".
those realizations, to name a few, have lead me to be suspect about the sacrament being an accurate thermometer for a living Presence in our midst. for it often seems more sacrilegious than sacrament not five minutes after the ritual is done and "regular" life resumes, regardless of how marvelous the pageant is. God may unite us, but people divide us.
i've long heard the rationalization that we're all sinners and you can't expect anything else in a church of humans. i think that generous excuse should apply to non-churchgoers as well, then.
i'll be renting a canoe with my vacationing non-churchgoing husband today to paddle around on the lake, despite our being neither sacramentalist nor anti-sacramentalist. we're just, glad to be alive and it's a beautiful day in autumn.
Posts: 1236 | From: usa | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
FWIW, leaping blindly into the fray,my own view, which I think is shared by many, but I suspect not all, in my free-church-affiliated-to-the Baptist-union-but-definitely-not-Baptist-oh-no can be set out as follows:-
1. All of creation mediates God's presence (pace Romans 1:20) and thus is sacramental. This has tremendous implications for how we care for the environment. No one part of it is more imbued with God's presence than another, with the exception of...
2. Humans, who are created in God's image and to reflect His glory. This comes to particular fruition as those humans give themselves over to relationship with God through the Incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus, and thus constitute the Body of Christ. This, far from denying the sacramental nature of the Incarnation, affirms it.
Thus whilst, in common with many evangelicals, I would not view God as being present any more than He usually is in the communion bread and wine, seeing this as both commemorative and eschatological rather than the elements mediating some kind of Real Presence, nevertheless, flowing partly from 2 above, I would say that He is present in a 'special', more tangible (?) way when the church is gathered together in unity for communion to specially concentrate on the Incarnation, atonement etc and their consequences for us, that 'gathering together' having as its focus the (created) elements of bread and wine.
Hope that makes sense!
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
RuthW,
I agree. But what disturbs me is the importance given to the individual in the non-sacramental tradition. In spite of what Daisymay is saying, I don't beleive the individual is the arbiter of reality.
Scot,
I have tried to show how things are not equal, but let me use your example. If you find God in your happy face, and everything else only has quote:
equal potential as vehicles of God's presence
There is absolutely no reason for you to look for God in anything else than your happy face. Nothing else can bring you more. Its all equal. To me its a disturbing idea, people by themselves, alone with their happy faces, experiencing the ultimate vehicle of God's presences (because they are all equally ultimate).
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
There is absolutely no reason for you to look for God in anything else than your happy face. Nothing else can bring you more. Its all equal. To me its a disturbing idea, people by themselves, alone with their happy faces, experiencing the ultimate vehicle of God's presences (because they are all equally ultimate).
Your logic is still broken. You claim that God is more present in certain sacraments. It seems to me that by your own reasoning, you are the one with no reason to look anywhere else.
Still, I think it is a silly argument. To say that I've experienced God via my wafer-and-wine or my smiley face, so I don't need to look any farther is inane. It would be like if I said I've hugged my wife, so I don't need to kiss her.
--------------------
“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
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Matt Black, your post makes perfect sense. I completely agree.
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Matt Black, your post makes perfect sense. I completely agree.
scot
More than sense ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
It isn't that I have trouble with the notion that God is present in the bread and wine, or in some way present in holy places and sacred rites. It is that I have trouble following the idea that God isn't present anywhere (or everywhere?) else.
God, the creator of the universe, cannot said to be located within the universe, any more than a painter is located within a painting, or an author within a book. Lawrence Sterne is not more present on page 171 of Tristram Shandy than he is on page 181 (I draw a veil over page 71).
Of course an author might paint a clearer self-portrait in one part of a work than another, and by analogy (though a weak one) we might imagine that God paints a clearer self-portrait in one part of Creation than in another. A Christian will want to say that that self-portrait is clearest of all in the birth and life and work and death and resurrection of Jesus.
Maybe we are just using the words differently. To me, the truth that the whole of creation proclaims the glory of God if anything tends away from a sacramentalist approach because sacramentalism receives God only in certain parts of creation - but then it is obviously true that no creature can perceive or relate to the whole of creation at once, so any reception of God has to be particular.
I still don't see what it has got to do with supposed differences between East and West (rejecting for the timne being the uncharitable suppostition that the whole thing was a troll in the first place, an attempt to set up a thread to bash Protestants with)
Green politics is a Lutheran heresy - discuss ![[Sunny]](graemlins/flowerface.gif)
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
I am suggesting that it is necessary to admit that things have different ability to be vehicles of God's grace. Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox always have. I never said quote:
I've experienced God via my wafer-and-wine [snip]so I don't need to look any farther
I am suggesting that if you continue in your fiction of the equal ability of material things to be vehicles of God's presence, you have to accept the delightful ecclesiology of people by themselves, alone with their happy faces, experiencing the ultimate vehicle of God's presence (because they are all equally ultimate)
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
I never said "I've experienced God via my wafer-and-wine [snip]so I don't need to look any farther."
True, but at 16:07 you said:
quote:
There is absolutely no reason for you to look for God in anything else than your happy face. Nothing else can bring you more.
All I did was apply the same logic to your own tradition. It looks silly from that perspective, doesn't it?
I realize you meant it in a derogatory manner, but I do find "people by themselves, alone with their happy faces, experiencing the ultimate vehicle of God's presence" to be delightful. It is also delightful if they are in groups, or if they are experiencing God in a "sacrament".
We are going in circles here. Unless you have something new to add, or unless someone else has soemthing to say, I think I am done with this argument.
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 Scot:
Matt Black, your post makes perfect sense. I completely agree.
scot
Me too.
And with Blackbird.
Now to experiment with quotes -
quote:
In spite of what Daisymay is saying, I don't beleive the individual is the arbiter of reality.
It works! Even the spelling mistake. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I'm not saying that the individual is the arbiter of reality. God is the arbiter of reality.
Read Inanna's (thank you, Inanna, I would have gone mad trying to access the depth of my memory's filing cabinet) verse. God keeps everything alive and real.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Ley Druid
quote:
There is absolutely no reason for you to look for God in anything else than your happy face. Nothing else can bring you more. Its all equal. To me its a disturbing idea, people by themselves, alone with their happy faces, experiencing the ultimate vehicle of God's presences (because they are all equally ultimate).
Isn't that the very nature of worshipping in front of the TV set with your favourite tele-evangelist .... no community, no sacraments .... just me and Jesus being happy but with me making the rules. I might condescend to get involved with a church if it predominantly contained people just like me.
Back to the question at a more visceral level ...
Anti sacramentalists may make grand statements about God being everywhere .... we can all ... we SHOULD all agree with that. My point is that antisacramentalists ADDITIONALLY deny that God is SOMEWHERE. The only case they will allow (which we ALL allow, including sacramentalists) is that He is present in a particular human heart. It's THINGS that are the real problem of course, (sacraments, relics, holy places etc. etc). It strikes many antisacramentalists as pantheistic or perhaps panentheistic. Taking refuge in saying that God is everywhere isn't addressing that issue at all. That ... and only that is the connection I am making with creation doctrine and care for the environment.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
If Scot does not wish to continue the conversation, I bid him well. I would like to thank Fr. Gregory and everyone else for the discussion. I had a chance to consider my own ideas and those of others. Several people have suggested that sacramentalism somehow limits (confines or whatever) God. I can't find one example of a sacramentalist on this thread saying God is limited to sacraments, sacramentals, or anything else. If Scot and others wish to continue to believe this, God bless them.
It seems we are all in agreement with the statement "Denying God in the material realm denies the God-bearing character of creation."
Sacramentalists affirm that in particular aspects of creation God is present in a "special" way.
I have suggested that historically, some protestants have denied God's presence in these aspects of creation. The vestiges of these anti-sacramentalists seems to be some non-sacramentalists who don't like the "specialness" of sacramentality. quote:
What Christ did not do was define the sacraments (I knew this was about the sacraments) as being more "God-bearing" than any other part of creation. Nor did He define what exactly the ritual was to do, other than remind us of Him.
You seem to be making the assumption that because Christ considered the eucharist to be important enough to command repetition, it is somehow different than other elements of creation. I do not believe that this assumption is demonstrably any more valid than assuming that anything which reminds us of Christ is equally "special".
Then Matt Black comes along with a very good description of his non-sacramental tradition with which other non-sacramentalists agree. But he says of creation quote:
No one part of it is more imbued with God's presence than another, with the exception of...Humans
and God is quote:
present in a 'special', more tangible (?) way when the church is ...
Why are non-sacramentalists allowed to experience God in "special" ways (without limiting God), but not sacramentalists? For that matter, what could it possibly mean for something to be "equally "special"".
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
I think all Christians accept that God is in some way present in every part of His creation ... even in the bits that have gone awfully wrong.
I think it is futile to discuss whether God is more present in some things (e.g. "Holy water") than others (e.g. the influenza virus).
The key question is "Are there some things in creation in which (or through which) it is easier for us to perceive God?".
Those with a high view of the sacraments might say that consecrated bread and wine, or Holy water, or historic places of worship or various other things are useful (and God-given) focuses which help us perceive God in and through created matter. And having perceived God in particular elements, if we are not idolaters, we will perceive God in other created matter and also beleive God is beyond created matter.
Some saints posting here seem to claim to have the gift of perceiving God in all creation without needing the sacraments.
As I said earlier, in my personal history, as a person with little sacramentalism I beleived God was in all and through all, but in a somewhat theoetical fashion. Now in a more sacramental tradition, that perception is more vivid.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by ptarmigan:
Some saints posting here seem to claim to have the gift of perceiving God in all creation without needing the sacraments.
Sorry, a correction. I didn't mean to cause any offence. I should have ended this sentnece with something more like:
"without needing a highly sacramental perspective".
By the way my use of the word "saints" betrays my non-sacramental background. St (with a capital S)Paul refers to all the Christians as saints (which I spell with a small s).
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Isn't that the very nature of worshipping in front of the TV set with your favourite tele-evangelist .... no community, no sacraments .... just me and Jesus being happy but with me making the rules. I might condescend to get involved with a church if it predominantly contained people just like me.
Uh, news flash--Protestants do go to church. And the "people just like me" thing is a problem at many churches. Some churches shun people who aren't like them.
As to worshipping in front of the tv: I'm not big on televangelists--but they are helpful for people who can't make it to church due to illness, family responsibilities, etc.
Amd FWIW, there are sacramentalist services on tv and radio. RC; don't know about Orthodox.
Anti sacramentalists may make grand statements about God being everywhere .... we can all ... we SHOULD all agree with that. My point is that antisacramentalists ADDITIONALLY deny that God is SOMEWHERE.
Actually, Everywhere is composed of all the Somewheres. Forest and the trees. It's both/and, not either/or.
And that's one reason for my sig.
--------------------
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
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
[QB]Isn't that the very nature of worshipping in front of the TV set with your favourite tele-evangelist .... no community, no sacraments .... just me and Jesus being happy but with me making the rules. I might condescend to get involved with a church if it predominantly contained people just like me.
No, you just condescend.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Why are non-sacramentalists allowed to experience God in "special" ways (without limiting God), but not sacramentalists? For that matter, what could it possibly mean for something to be "equally "special"".
I do not take issue with the idea that Christians (of whatever persuasion)can experience God in special ways. For me, rather, it is the notion that one can experience God in a more special way through inanimate objects ex specie(bread, wine, oil etc)which causes me the problem; to me, if anything, this detracts or at least distracts from the Incarnation, whereas the idea of God being specially present in and through His people (particularly if they are commemorating the death and resurrection of the Lord)affirms and celebrates this.
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
I am new here. I am also not that bright. But I do believe I have made an astounding discovery. If you check this thread for the use of the words "more present" you will discover the source is invariably protestant. Protestants have obviously taught that Catholics believe God is "more present" in the eucharist. The phrase "more present" cannot be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Those not in communion with the venerable, historical, and most holy apostolic sees of Constantinople and Rome have, on this very thread, imputed to others the belief that God is "more present", something which is not true and which they do not hold, gone to great pains to demonstrate quote:
Lawrence Sterne is not more present on page 171 of Tristram Shandy than he is on page 181
from which it follows that said belief and believers are in error and to continue further discussion would be most importunate because quote:
We are going in circles here.
Let me be the most disparaging possible (while mainting decorum appropriate to Purgatory and not really wishing to offend anybody) and let me suggest that anyone guilty of such behavior is worthy of the most contemptible contempt and that I would have expected far more from the Children of the Enlightenment. Let me furthermore defy the hosts (without, of course in any way besmirching the impeccable nature of our most gracious hosts) to call me the village idiot and not to let my post stand intact. Fie!
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
The phrase "more present" cannot be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Those not in communion with the venerable, historical, and most holy apostolic sees of Constantinople and Rome have, on this very thread, imputed to others the belief that God is "more present", something which is not true and which they do not hold, gone to great pains to demonstrate.
Then what are we arguing about, exactly?
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
And - How does this statement:
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Scot,
The assertion quote:
all material things are equally able to be vehicles of God's presence
is NOT reconcileable with sacramentalism. A person encounters a finite number of material things. Those things which he/she doesn't encounter can't be vehicles of God's presence in that person's life.
Not contradict this one:
quote:
Those not in communion with the venerable, historical, and most holy apostolic sees of Constantinople and Rome have, on this very thread, imputed to others the belief that God is "more present", something which is not true and which they do not hold, gone to great pains to demonstrate
Inquiring minds meed to know.
And, at this point, can I just register how appalled I am at the contempt some Christians are clearly held by their brothers and sisters, and at the demonstration of this in this thread?
And yes, I do mean you, Ley Druid.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FatMac
Ship's Macintosh
# 2914
|
Posted
Having just come from the 'Moderation' thread, and being a simple person unable to follow some of the metaphysical arguments being bandied about here, I think a moderate approach would say:
If God has asked us to partake of certain activities, ie. eating bread and wine, annointing with oil, being baptised; doesn't it make sense to think that he would bless us in a special way when we do these things in obedience to him? And if this is the case, then wouldn't it be true to say that the oil, water, bread or wine which are the physical requirements of the activities in question are thus the channel in this case of God's special blessing? Isn't that what 'sacrament' means?
If this is the case, then the (say) bread and wine are not special because they are consecrated - that would be magic. Rather, a prayer of consecration is a recognition (in faith) that these particular elements will shortly become special when they enable us to partake of the activity of obedience and worship.
--------------------
Do not beware the slippery slope - it is where faith resides.
Do not avoid the grey areas - they are where God works.
Posts: 1706 | From: Sydney | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Wood,
You are completely right. I shouldn't hold any person in contempt, and I don't believe I do. But I said that on the post so I apologize, what I should have said was:
Those not in communion with the venerable, historical, and most holy apostolic sees of Constantinople and Rome have, on this very thread, imputed to others the belief that God is "more present", something which is not true and which they do not hold, gone to great pains to demonstrate
quote:
Lawrence Sterne is not more present on page 171 of Tristram Shandy than he is on page 181
from which it follows that said belief and believers are in error and to continue further discussion would be most importunate because
quote:
We are going in circles here.
Let me be the most disparaging possible (while mainting decorum appropriate to Purgatory and not really wishing to offend anybody) and let me suggest that such behavior is worthy of the most contemptible contempt and that I would have expected far more from the Children of the Enlightenment.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
I can accept linz's description of a sacrament, even if I don't completely agree with it. Notice he didn't suggest God was "more present". I think it would be unfair to say that he did. And I still think it is contemptibly contemptible to suggest that Catholics do.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Fine, Ley Druid. Explain to me then your conception of how God is present in a sacrament. Is he:
- More present than in a non-sacrament;
- Present, as opposed to a non-sacrament in which he is not present;
- Present in a different mode than in a non-sacrament; or
- Something else which you will now explain.
I've asked you several times to clarify how sacramentalism differs from non-sacramentalism if you agree that any object can convey God's presence. Maybe you will do so this time.
For the record, I did not say that it was "importunate" because we were going in circles. I discontinued my participation because it was unproductive (which may have been the word you were after). Your "disparagement" post was rather pathetic. If you sincerely wish to pursue this question farther, you might simply have posted a new argument and asked for a response.
--------------------
“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 Wood:
And, at this point, can I just register how appalled I am at the contempt some Christians are clearly held by their brothers and sisters, and at the demonstration of this in this thread?
Ditto.
And this is the kind of wrangling that's been splitting the church for 2000 years. We're not likely to get it resolved here! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
And--big surprise--no one's apt to change their views. Gee, Christians with different ideas about things. Who woulda thunk it? ![[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
|
|
Destiny907
Apprentice
# 3379
|
Posted
This is a great forum to read! I had to jump in!
I don't have the intellectual capacity to argue theology or philosophy with anyone learned.
All I know is that one doesn't need the "sacraments" or any rituals whatsoever to be saved by Jesus Christ!!!!!!! All I know is that one must born again, with the Holy Spirit, and then he is a new Creature in Christ, Saved, once and forever.
A person can attend Mass, Confession, be annointed, pray thousands of Rosaries, flog, starve, suffer- that doesn't save them.
Being Born again is so simple-- there isn't anything one can do to gain it-- Christ did it all. All I know is God wants us to admit that we ARE sinners and can't change ourselves. Then we throw ourselves at his feet when we realize He is all- merciful and we have laid aside our pride. HE fills us with his Spirit.
BEING Christ-like is nothing like going to all the Masses, worship services, mouthing prayers. (A cat can put ON a dog suit- but is he a dog unless he was born one???)
God doesn't say do rituals and get points and I may save you!!! NO- he says There is therefor NO condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
What a person DOES and behaves like is only what he is inside. Period. A person has peace, love, kindness mercy, all the fruits because that is what is inside because of Christ. The acts do not save- the good acts come as a RESULT of having Christ inside.
So, to sum up, No, I do not believe we need any rituals for God to save us!!!
Jesus Saves to the UTTERMOST.
--------------------
I am persuaded that nothing can separate me from the love of God.
Posts: 1 | From: USA | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
You're so doomed.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
This is a great forum to read! I had to jump in!
Good! I'm glad you like our little boat.
I don't have the intellectual capacity to argue theology or philosophy with anyone learned.
Nor do a lot of the people who do anyway. Don't worry about that.
All I know is that one doesn't need the "sacraments" or any rituals whatsoever to be saved by Jesus Christ!!!!!!!
And I don't think you'll find anyone disagreeing with you there, Destiny.
All I know is that one must born again, with the Holy Spirit, and then he is a new Creature in Christ, Saved, once and forever.
Well, yes.....and no. But that's rather a large can of worms. Different thread, perhaps?
A person can attend Mass, Confession, be annointed, pray thousands of Rosaries, flog, starve, suffer- that doesn't save them.
Quite right. Again, I don't think anyone was saying that it would
Being Born again is so simple-- there isn't anything one can do to gain it-- Christ did it all. All I know is God wants us to admit that we ARE sinners and can't change ourselves. Then we throw ourselves at his feet when we realize He is all- merciful and we have laid aside our pride. HE fills us with his Spirit.
Again, yes....and no. This is a useful model for some people, but not for others. Some people are rather more sinned against than sinning, and I don't think that God initially meets them in this "Holy God Wot We've Done Wrong" mode. But, again, models of salvation is a huge subject, isn't it?
BEING Christ-like is nothing like going to all the Masses, worship services, mouthing prayers.
Careful. Devout people of sacramental traditions would not take kindly to being accused of merely "mouthing prayers".
(A cat can put ON a dog suit- but is he a dog unless he was born one???)
God doesn't say do rituals and get points and I may save you!!!
Again, no-one's saying He does
NO- he says There is therefor NO condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Yes. And this means what in relation to the church's rituals and sacraments?
What a person DOES and behaves like is only what he is inside. Period. A person has peace, love, kindness mercy, all the fruits because that is what is inside because of Christ. The acts do not save- the good acts come as a RESULT of having Christ inside.
Yes, but again I think it's a bit more complicated than that. Want to discuss it?
So, to sum up, No, I do not believe we need any rituals for God to save us!!!
Nor does anyone else on this thread, I think you'll find.
Jesus Saves to the UTTERMOST.
We can agree there.
A word to the wise - don't try to explain you're entire theology in one post - God took thousands of years, 30 of them in person.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Welcome aboard, Destiny907!
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
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
<aside>Hello, Destiny and welcome! Your post was comprehensive and interesting....<aside finished>
Well, folks, here's something else to be disagreed with!
Discussing Real Presence, the efficacy of sacrament, God's presence in the sacrament of life, the universe and everything is great fun. And I could do all that 'till the cows come home. But I guess for me the bottom line is this:
I enjoy the sacrament of nature, when I sense God's presence in the world and other human beings. There is something about the beauty of sunset, countryside, seascape, etc, that can help me in my worship and enjoyment of God's presence as nothing else can.
I also enjoy the sacraments defined ritually in the church setting because although I believe God is absolutely present at all times, the physicality of the sacramental actions can act as touches of his presence, again, in a way that nothing else can. Water is poured - maybe for baptism - and folks get wet, the floor gets messy, candles get lit and there's heat and candle-wax dripping, the chaos and paradox of trying to do anything solemnly and with dignity, when you've got a 14 month child wriggling and screaming in your arms (to say nothing of adult baptism!); in all those sensations God mediates 'something' of his presence. Not something more, but something that is already present; but, and here for me is the crux, in a way that is specifically about the Kingdom of God and its values.
Similarly, in the Eucharist, there's wine (strong alcoholic stuff sometimes!), there's bread or wafer; there's the practical business of the minister washing and drying hands, of cleaning up afterwards. The efficient but reverently joyful distribution of food and drink (of a sort!) to crowds of people. Simple commonplace actions that have been adopted into ritual, in my humble opinion, showing that nothing is beyond the notice and presence of God.
There's the physical sensation of tasting, the 'bite' and 'nose' of the wine, the crumbliness of the bread. The need, sometimes, to stand or kneel, to move one's body in order to make the effort to acknowledge that Presence. Even afterwards, the faint whiff of alcohol on the breath of co-communicants, demonstrating that we've shared in the same meal, to remember the same glorious Lord and his precious death and resurrection and glorious ascension. It's all so PHYSICAL! And I love that. I love the fact that I belong to a religion which affirms ALL my senses, external and internal; that allows me to taste and smell(!), feel, touch, enjoy.
I can do all these things outside the church and equally feel God's presence and love; but for me there is no anomoly to feel these sensations within a church service either. I really want to 'taste and see that the Lord is good'; not literally in the sense of biting Christ (though I am respectful of those for whom this aspect is essentially important), but in the sense of feeling that bread and wine, and knowing that even in that most necessary and ridiculously commonplace action of eating a morsel of food - God is there! Even there.
So for me the ritual sacramentalism of the Church is very much about affirming the already present character of God in creation. But in an overtly 'other' way; not separate from nature, but fulfilling it.
This is my personal feeling towards 'sacrament'; so it's all about feelings and instincts. I've deliberately left the academic bit out, because far better minds than mine have covered all that, I'm glad to say!
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Scot,
Early on I suggested the idea of a sacramental encounter. I think we still all agree on the necessity of an encounter with God. God is present in all creation. But unless a human is present, no part of creation can be a sacramental encounter between wo/man and God. So in a sacrament God is never quote:
More present than in a non-sacrament;
Present, as opposed to a non-sacrament in which he is not present;
Present in a different mode than in a non-sacrament
I am not a non-sacramentalist so if you want me quote:
to clarify how sacramentalism differs from non-sacramentalism if you agree that any object can convey God's presence
I'm going to have to use what you or others tell me about non-sacramentalism. I have been listening. It will always be possible for you to suggest that I have not fairly understood non-sacramentalism, or simply that I still have not given you the clarification you seek. I can accept that. I cannot accept you telling me I said things I never said.
To me, non-sacramentalism seems to me could embrace several positions. The most radical, which I don't think you adopt, is something like that of Destiny907. No sacraments because anything outside you and Jesus doesn't matter (which is not to deny any object can convey God's presence). quote:
What a person DOES and behaves like is only what he is inside. Period.
Obvious difference: in sacramentalism, "what a person DOES and behaves like" both effects and is affected by outside things (the rest of creation). Just because it isn't your brand, I'm not sure you can say it isn't non-sacramentalism. I hope you see why it might worry environmentalists.
Your more nuanced and environmentally friendly position seems to be that any object can convey God's presence so sacramental material things are no more able to be vehicles of God's presence than anything else. Obvious difference-- in sacramentalism: some elements of creation are held in special regard with their ability to be vehicles of God's presence. They don't all have equal ability. Let's see why. Any object can convey God's presence. But an object cannot convey God's presence to a human without a human, therefore the ability of two objects to convey God's presence can clearly be unequal without denying the ability of both. Some people are avowed atheists. Somehow their objects are not conveying God's presence too well. So objects in the hands of a believer obviously have different ability than those in the hands of a non-believer. Finally, some objects are obviously used more often than others to convey God's presence, clearly the former have greater ability to convey God's presence to a greater number of people than the latter.
I agree that any object can convey God's presence, AND have shown how sacramentalism is clearly different from non-sacramentalism. I hope this is what you sought. I would like to discuss problems I see with non-sacramentalism, but this is impossible until we acknowledge they are different and this post is way too long.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ptarmigan
Shipmate
# 138
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
Fine, Ley Druid. Explain to me then your conception of how God is present in a sacrament. Is he:
- More present than in a non-sacrament;
- Present, as opposed to a non-sacrament in which he is not present;
- Present in a different mode than in a non-sacrament; or
- Something else which you will now explain.
The last option. Something else. God is present in all of creation, but more discernable in the specific sacraments. That is, the sacraments act like an aid to prayer, helping us to meet the God who is all around us if only we had eyes to see.
--------------------
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
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Ley Druid, you have not shown how a sacramentalist differs from a non-sacramentalist except that the former believes that God's presence cannot be conveyed without a human receptor, and the latter does not. This is not much of a basis for a major disagreement.
Perhaps definitions are in order, since I fear we are talking past each other? Websters defines sacramentalism as "belief in or use of sacramental rites, acts, or objects; specifically : belief that the sacraments are inherently efficacious and necessary for salvation." I would propose that a non-sacramentalist does not believe that such rites, acts or objects are inherently effecacious or necessary for salvation. And then, an anti-scaramentalist is opposed to the use of such rites, acts or objects.
Please note that I am not trying to score any points. I just want to define terms so that we can converse productively. If you disagree with any of these definitions, please provide an alternate.
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
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
ptarmigan, I like your description of the role of sacraments. I can’t see that it differs from my own understanding, except probably in the definition of “specific sacraments.”
--------------------
“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
Let me share my understanding of quote:
inherently efficacious and necessary for salvation.
inherently efficacious - because sacraments come from God and necessary because salvation must come from God
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Scot,
To what do you object to in quote:
God is present in all of creation, but more discernable in the specific sacraments
Are you saying you can't discern God more in the sacraments or that other people can't?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Are you saying you can't discern God more in the sacraments or that other people can't?
To refer back to me earlier example, I am saying that I can discern God in the your consecrated bread, in my "unconsecrated" bread AND in the smiley face on my wall. He is present in all of those. (wasn't this thread about the God-bearing nature of Creation?) I can only speak for myself. I would not presume to say where other people may perceive God.
Do you agree with the proposed definitions, or not?
--------------------
“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
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Scot,
I think we still all agree on the necessity of an encounter with God. God is present in all creation. But unless a human is present, no part of creation can be a sacramental encounter between wo/man and God.
At least we can agree on the necessity of humans (presumably Christians) being present for there to be an encounter; are you also agreeing with the implication that therefore inanimate objects cannot of themselves mediate God's presence? If you are, then perhaps we are not so far apart as we think.
Yours in Christ
Matt
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Matt Black,
You are completely correct. I would wholeheartedly agree that quote:
inanimate objects cannot of themselves mediate God's presence
I really like your use of the word mediate. In Catholic sacramental theology mediation is what makes sacraments possible.
I think Scot raises interesting questions about inanimate objects. quote:
Ley Druid, you have not shown how a sacramentalist differs from a non-sacramentalist except that the former believes that God's presence cannot be conveyed without a human receptor, and the latter does not.
God is certainly present, but what does it mean to say his presence is mediated or conveyed between two inanimate objects?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Scot,
The proposed definitions are fine.
Why do you say quote:
I would not presume to say where other people may perceive God.
I presume they may perceive God when they listen to a reading of the bible in church on Sunday morning. Am I wrong that they do. Or is it somehow wrong, to presume something that common sense would suggest?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Then let me rephrase.
I would not presume to say where other people may not perceive God.
Especially since I do not think there is any such place.
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
I would presume that an atheist could quite easily say s/he doesn't perceive God at a pontifical mass at St. Peter's.
So I don't see why you say quote:
I would not presume to say where other people may not perceive God.
This is not just semantic bickering.
If you take the attitude it is somehow wrong to presume or assert truth statements about things concerning God (or perceiving God) that is fine. But it rather limits the scope of possible discussion.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
The fact that the atheist does not perceive God at St. Peter's does not contradict my position. Either the atheist has chosen not to see God or God has chosen not to reveal himself. I cannot way whether the atheist (or anyone else) may or may not perceive God in the cathedral, in the desert or in the smiley face on his wall.
Are you sure this is not just semantic bickering? Are we going anywhere with this?
--------------------
“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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
