|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Anti-sacramentalism is a denial of the God-bearing character of Creation
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
If quote:
Either the atheist has chosen not to see God or God has chosen not to reveal himself
why do you say quote:
I cannot [s]ay whether the atheist (or anyone else) may or may not perceive God
If the atheist has chosen not to see God, may the atheist perceive God? How? If God has chosen not to reveal himself, may the atheist perceive God? How? Don't both individuals have to want to communicate to allow one to perceive the other? I get the feeling you may not understand this important prerequisite to communication and perceiving another. I also get the feeling you may not want to communicate with me. Its up to you Scot...but there don't seem to be too many anti-sacramentalist or non-sacramentalist left, so it will just be me and the other sacramentalists affirming the God-bearing character of creation.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I think the anti-sacramentalists who believe that God is present everywhere are missing the point. There is no incompatability between God's presence in all things, and His special presence in objects set aside and consecrated for that use. Neither, in the same way, does the priesthood of all believers mean that we can't have ordained priests again set aside for God's kingdom on earth.
I admire the Quaker view of seeing Christ on the face of every stranger, and God in every experience, but to partake of the blessed sacrament hallowed for the purpose of being the Body and Blood of Christ is to be where the veil between time and eternity, between fallen humanity and the divine nature is at its thinnest, and where the church militant can come to the heavenly table in the presence of the Communion of Saints.
Christ said, "Do this in memory of me." As we make our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, Christ's presence in the Bread and Wine ensures that a mystical renewal of His sacrifice heals us of our sin.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
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.
?
Or perhaps the atheist can't see God. People get hurt, have different backgrounds, have different brain wiring.
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
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.
Perhaps they're vehicles of God's presence just because they are, because they exist, because God made them. At some times, a person may be able to see God in a particular thing. But not at another time. And another person might never see God in that object. Or in any object.
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.
If that's the case, then the sun, moon, earth, air, water are sacraments, since most people encounter them--and all people are affected by them, even if they can't perceive them.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Yes they COULD be sacramental encounters. Please read the above and tell me what you don't understand about how atheists don't experience the sacramental. If you wish to remove the connotation of communication from the phrase "vehicle of God's presence" and then tell me how wrong I am, go right ahead. But then let's talk about how God communicates with people, because that is what sacramentalism is all about. Antisacramentalists and nonsacramentalists seem to be fond of impeding communication.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Antisacramentalists and nonsacramentalists seem to be fond of impeding communication.
Hardly.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Yes they COULD be sacramental encounters.
Fine with me--I love perceiving God in nature.
It just seems that you're saying that something is *more* of a sacrament if *more* people can/do perceive it.
If that's the case, then one could make the argument that all of creation--including humans--is the greatest sacrament. Because that's where the most people have found hints of God's presence.
Please read the above and tell me what you don't understand about how atheists don't experience the sacramental.
You seem to be saying that choice is a necessary part of perception/communication. Not so.
Someone might not be *able* to perceive, for whatever reasons.
Someone might force communication on you. If you're walking down the street and someone yells at you, that's not something you *chose*. But you do perceive it, if you're able at that particular moment.
Someone may perceive something, but define or experience it differently than you.
An atheist may not choose to be an atheist, may not choose to reject sacraments, may not ignore God. An atheist may simply experience life differently than you do.
But then let's talk about how God communicates with people, because that is what sacramentalism is all about.
IMHO, God communicates in all kinds of ways, all the time. God is available to everyone, all the time. Life gets in the way.
Some people may feel they meet God most directly in the Eucharist. Or sitting by a waterfall. Or when they're at peace. Or when they eat really good chocolate ice cream! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Antisacramentalists and nonsacramentalists seem to be fond of impeding communication.
Uh, the ones on this thread have tried to *help* communication by asking you to declare very plainly what you mean...and not bash them.
--------------------
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
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by golden_key:
Uh, the [non-sacramentalists] on this thread have tried to *help* communication by asking you to declare very plainly what you mean...and not bash them.
Thank you, golden_key.
--------------------
“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
Sacraments are the signs and instruments by which God communicates the presence of Christ throughout the Church. They can be perceived by the senses and require prayer. Sacramentalism says sacraments are inherently efficacious and necessary for salvation.
God is everywhere in creation but nothing in creation is God (not even all of creation is God). quote:
You seem to be saying that choice is a necessary part of perception/communication. Not so. ...
What you said would be true if God were material, the senses do not require consent. Perceiving God is not the same thing as perceiving an object (even though God is present in the object) because the object is not God. Something about God is beyond the object and unless you deny free will, one can chose to reject to perceive (communicate with) the God beyond the object and sensations. Do you deny the free will to reject God?
I truly don't wish to offend anybody. I dislike ideas, not people. I will try to tone down my flair for the dramatic. I hope this thread has been useful for others, it has been for me.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
What you said would be true if God were material, the senses do not require consent. Perceiving God is not the same thing as perceiving an object (even though God is present in the object) because the object is not God. Something about God is beyond the object and unless you deny free will, one can chose to reject to perceive (communicate with) the God beyond the object and sensations. Do you deny the free will to reject God?
Several things:
--No, I don't necessarily deny the free will to reject God--but I'm not sure how often anyone actually *does*. People may reject who they think God is, just as they may accept who they think God is. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with *who God is*, so they're not necessarily rejecting/accepting God.
--What if someone has been hurt in such a way that they can't perceive God in any way? Or trust God in any way?
--You said:
Something about God is beyond the object and unless you deny free will, one can chose to reject to perceive (communicate with) the God beyond the object and sensations.
But if it's a matter of choice, then you have to know God is there, and what/who God is.
I think it would help if we separated "perception" from "communication". Not the same thing.
BTW, if someone really does reject God, that is a form of communication.
--If God is present in a sacrament, specifically the Eucharist, someone may perceive the objects (bread and wine) but not perceive God at all. That goese for both non-believers and non-believers. Is that their fault? Is it still a sacrament?
I truly don't wish to offend anybody. I dislike ideas, not people. I will try to tone down my flair for the dramatic. I hope this thread has been useful for others, it has been for me.
FYI, if you really are just being dramatic, it isn't coming across that way in this thread. It's coming across as "Everyone else BAD", followed by repeated bonks on the head, followed by dumping truckloads of heavy-duty theology on us--and not hearing us when we complain. That's my opinion...and from some of the other posts I've seen, others seem to share it.
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Please forgive my typos. In the previous post, a mucked-up sentence should read:
"That goes for both non-believers and believers."
--------------------
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
I don't think that anyone yet has answered Paul's point that it's not an "either / or" issue. Sacramentalists, agreeing with this go on to say that SPECIFIC encounters in SPECIFIC ways (the sacraments) help make tangible and particular what is generalised and universal. In so doing the universal is made more vivid. I may be moved by a glorious vista or sunset but I eat the body of Christ and drink of His blood. Christ in the former is unfocussed, in the latter, sharp and clear. Having received Communion I return to the vista or the sunset with clarified vision.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
I don't think that anyone yet has answered Paul's point that it's not an "either / or" issue.
Well, somewhat similarly, on page 3, in response to your
"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."
I said:
"Actually, Everywhere is composed of all the Somewheres. Forest and the trees. It's both/and, not either/or.
Sacramentalists, agreeing with this go on to say that SPECIFIC encounters in SPECIFIC ways (the sacraments) help make tangible and particular what is generalised and universal. In so doing the universal is made more vivid. I may be moved by a glorious vista or sunset but I eat the body of Christ and drink of His blood. Christ in the former is unfocussed, in the latter, sharp and clear. Having received Communion I return to the vista or the sunset with clarified vision.
Yes, specific encounters do help in relating to the universal; and yes, Eucharist/Communion can have that effect (regardless, I think, of your beliefs about what actually happens to the bread/wine).
But some people can find God "sharp and clear" in Creation, people, and the aforementioned smiley face. And not find God in the Eucharist. Or not find God at all.
--------------------
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
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
Perhaps I am expressing this poorly (I have not been well, and hope I am clear), but I see some problems with concepts of creation and Incarnation arising from that, in recent years, the earth and all of its physical features life (plants, animals, etc.) are not seen in their proper light. Francis of Assisi, in his Canticle of the Creatures, was expressing glory for the Creator , and seeing each creature (sun, moon, and so forth) as giving honour to God by being what it was intended to be by Him. It is all too common now for us to descend to some sort of "earth religion," where God is basically ignored but ecology is an end in itself, or there is a highly distorted view of human nature.
We do have a unique dignity as humans - Christ himself assumed (and deified) our nature, and we are granted gifts of reason, choices, love that rocks and rats do not share. Indeed, stewardship of other resources is part of the Christian message, but there are many areas today where it seems that mankind is the worst part of creation - drinking the water, chopping down the trees, eating the animals. Human dignity is ignored - we are no different from the amoeba or dog - human life is the earth's main burden.
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
I agree with Newman's Own. Happy belated feast day of St. Francis, which was yesterday!
It is easy to say no SPECIFIC part of creation is more a sacrament than any other. It is also easy to say the world is flat. Nobody can disabuse another of such ideas, but I feel that criticism of those ideas will reveal that they either rest upon dubious assumptions or allow disturbing conclusions. Again, I apologize if I offended anyone whose ideas I whish to discredit.
quote:
What if someone has been hurt in such a way that they can't perceive God in any way? Or trust God in any way?
Interesting point. What does it mean to suggest that someone could lose their free will to accept God's love? Surely God can find a way to offer love to someone that rejects every human offer. But the person still has the choice.
quote:
But if it's a matter of choice, then you have to know God is there, and what/who God is.
God is there, but this is why other believers are very very important. People help bring other people to God. The suggestion that an individual can just do whatever s/he wants (because everything is equal) seems to reject this.
quote:
if someone really does reject God, that is a form of communication
And killing is a form of giving life, and hating is a form of showing love ...
quote:
If God is present in a sacrament, specifically the Eucharist, someone may perceive the objects (bread and wine) but not perceive God at all. That goes for both non-believers and non-believers. Is that their fault? Is it still a sacrament?
The sacrament is from God so it doesn't depend on the celebrant or the recipient. But the consequences of the sacrament will depend on the recipient. I remebmer a priest, speaking about sacramental votive candles, said "If you're not lighting those candles for God, then lighting them is a poor use of oxygen."
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Daisymay
The Incarnation is not a "theory" it is a fact and as such it cannot be separated from the data of Jesus as God the Word made flesh. In Him God and humanity are connected at the ontological level not merely the intentional or by way of exemplarism. The Incarnation means that in Him God was "somewhere" and not only "everywhere." This is the connection I was making in sacramentalism between the universal and the particular. Furthermore as "bearers of the Holy Spirit" we are to become by grace what He is by nature.
Dear Scot
Sacraments are sacraments because the Church obeys Christ's intention and will. It is not merely a matter of institutional cultic forms as Protestant polemic has longtime and wearingly now repeated.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Sorry everyone ... I have just realised that in the previous post I was responding to unanswered posts on page 2 where I went in error first.
--------------------
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:
Sacraments are sacraments because the Church obeys Christ's intention and will. It is not merely a matter of institutional cultic forms as Protestant polemic has longtime and wearingly now repeated.
"Protestant polemic"?
Good grief.
How do you get away with this crap?
Gregory, you are a one note crusader with an agenda to convert us all to your own branch of the church.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Come on Wood; you can't deny that Protestantism's classic position on the sacraments is that the Roman Catholic Church has not only perverted them but also made them her own private institutional property. The latter charge is thrown against the Orthodox as well every time we resist "inter-Communion."
--------------------
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
Wood,
I'm not personally familiar with the idiom, but to express one's speachless wonderment, and utter inability to reply wouldn't it be more appropriate to say quote:
*cough* boll *cough* ocks *cough*
Let us turn to the mild words of the Father of Protestantism quote:
They that do not hold the sacrament as Christ instituted it, have no sacrament. All papists do not, therefore they have no sacrament. LUTHER'S TABLE-TALK paragraph CCCLXIII
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Come on Wood; you can't deny that Protestantism's classic position on the sacraments is that the Roman Catholic Church has not only perverted them but also made them her own private institutional property. The latter charge is thrown against the Orthodox as well every time we resist "inter-Communion."
Gregory,
It's difficult to see how this 'charge' differs from the position you appear to hold.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Wood,
I'm not personally familiar with the idiom, but to express one's speachless wonderment, and utter inability to reply wouldn't it be more appropriate to say quote:
*cough* boll *cough* ocks *cough*
{/qb]
Actually, it's more blind, unreasoning fury.
Besides, since nobody pays the blindest bit of attention to anything I say, repeationg myself is pointless.
quote:
[qb]Let us turn to the mild words of the Father of Protestantism quote:
They that do not hold the sacrament as Christ instituted it, have no sacrament. All papists do not, therefore they have no sacrament. LUTHER'S TABLE-TALK paragraph CCCLXIII
Lovely man.
You seem to think that because I'm a Protestant, I'm necessarily going to hold to what Luther said.
Do I agree with his views about Jews? Do I consider "papists" (horrible word) not to be Christians?
No. I consider Catholics and Orthodox equal but different.
("Gosh, that's big of you," I hear you say.)
Let's face it, this is what Luther is getting at here. Which, frankly, is an issue which belongs to the past. I would have thought - outside Fundamentalism (and I use the word according to its actual meaning, rather than the meaning which some people here seemed determined to attach to it) - that we would have been beyond the whole "you're not a Christian" issue.
To use Luther's words - which were highly politically charged and meaningless outside of their direct historical context - is a pointless straw man argument. We come from an era where arguments like that are the sole premise of the bigoted and narrow. Luther came from an era where an argument like that was a political statement.
A lot of the frankly circular argument in this thread has been predicated on what the definition of a sacrament actually is.
I consider communion/the Lord's Table/Mass/Eucharist/whatever to be a sacrament, inasmuch as Jesus told us to break bread and share wine together.
So we break bread and share wine in whatever way our institutions hold dear. Personally, I believe that the presence of God as represented in the act of sharing togther in a potent symbolic act is an incredibly powerful thing.
(Apart from my knee-jerk intellectual bridling at the whole 'real presence' thing, I actually think that limiting the presence of God to the objects limits an omnipotent God.)
This is not your definition of a sacrament. I am aware of this. However, under my definition, your sacrament and my sacrament are both sacraments. Under yours, my sacrament is not, and therefore I am not a Christian/not part of the Church (delete as applicable depending on which argument you're brave enough to advance today).
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
My point here has never been to debate the definition of a sacrament. I have said I accept those of others. I have given mine because it was asked of me.
What I feel worthy of debate is the idea of anti-sacramentalism.
Coyly, most people seem unwilling to come out and say "nobody can have any sacraments." What they advance instead is "everything is equally able to be a sacrament". Sounds better than Luther, but the ideas aren't that far apart. I agree with your diachronic reading of Luther's statemtents (not sure all protestants do) but even in his day, the logical conclusion of his statement is that the criteria for a sacrament was if others "hold the sacrament as Christ instituted it". From which it is quite logical that someone could conclude no one has a sacrament. After which it would be convenient for someone to say I'll call a sacrament whatever I want.
Do you deny there are protestants at each step of this journey?
Why do protestants seem unwillingy to take any responsibility for the consequences of protestantism (televangelists etc) and ashamed of what their forefathers said. Catholics are forever responsible for the crusades and the inquisition etc.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
Coyly, most people seem unwilling to come out and say "nobody can have any sacraments."
Perhaps because nobody means that.
quote:
Why do protestants seem unwillingy to take any responsibility for the consequences of protestantism (televangelists etc) and ashamed of what their forefathers said. Catholics are forever responsible for the crusades and the inquisition etc.
I'll answer your question if you'll answer mine: Why are some Catholics unable to understand that protestantism is not composed of a monolithic system of beliefs and practices stemming from a common history? For extra credit, define "protestantism" using descriptive, rather than historical, terminology.
--------------------
“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 Ley Druid:
Coyly, most people seem unwilling to come out and say "nobody can have any sacraments."
Well, I was about to do that (in order to be provocative, you understand). It does make logical sense, after all. But I don't think that.
quote:
What they advance instead is "everything is equally able to be a sacrament".
See, I don't actually think that. What I said was, everything is equally able to be a vessel of God's presence. But - and you may at least agree with me partially on this one - the sacrament is at least partly in the doing, isn't it?
Jesus says, "do this in memory of me", and he means do something. An Orthodox sacrament is not a sacrament until it has been blessed by a priest, is it? Similarly, the Baptist sacrament of Communion is only a sacrament inasmuch as we are doing it together. The ritual is part of the sacrament. You can't simply go, "this object is a sacrament". The object AND the ritual are the sacrament for you; for me it's the ritual that's the sacrament.
quote:
Sounds better than Luther, but the ideas aren't that far apart.
On the contrary. I think they're irreconcilable.
quote:
I agree with your diachronic reading of Luther's statements
Good.
quote:
(not sure all protestants do)
Those that would agree with him are those who are the most likely never to have read Luther or even to know who he was.
quote:
but even in his day, the logical conclusion of his statement is that the criteria for a sacrament was if others "hold the sacrament as Christ instituted it". From which it is quite logical that someone could conclude no one has a sacrament.
Yes. That's right. But we haven't done that, have we? You seem to think that it's a logical result of protestant thinking, but if it is so logical, then how come nobody in our side of the Church has actually done that?
quote:
After which it would be convenient for someone to say I'll call a sacrament whatever I want.
Rubbish.
If you say that there are no sacraments, then you can't declare that you're going to call a sacrament whatever you want, because you've just said that there aren't any.
quote:
Do you deny there are protestants at each step of this journey?
Since the journey you speak of is a fiction which does not have any logical progression...
mmm-hmm. Damn right I do.
quote:
Why do protestants seem unwilling to take any responsibility for the consequences of protestantism (televangelists etc)
If televangelism and the 'prosperity teaching' attached to it were really the consequence of Protestantism and not of other factors, then why aren't we all like that?
quote:
and ashamed of what their forefathers said.
Are Catholics proud of the writings of Kramer and Sprenger? Or of Torquemada? Are you proud of the medieval popes? Of the debating tactics of Cyril of Alexandria? Of the anti-semitic writings of Augustine and Ambrose? Of the Judical Edicts of Constantine? Of Origen's self-castration? Of John Chrysostom's misogyny?
Errr, no. Even if many of these men are fathers of the Christian faith in general and Catholicism in particular, we cannot be proud of everything they have written. And the same goes for Luther. So leave off Luther, already.
quote:
Catholics are forever responsible for the crusades and the inquisition etc.
But how long did it take for them to admit that? After WWII, I think. So, like 800 years down the line.
Yes, we Protestants have a lot to answer for. But we've got a lot of time to make up. That doesn't excuse it. It's a simple fact.
And yes, I do believe in taking responsibility for these things. Which is why I make a point of opposing these heresies whereve I see them. So lay off the Protestant-bashing. I have never engaged in Catholic-bashing (and make a point of opposing it), and I'm not going to do it now.
And yes, I think you are Protestant-bashing. There's a great deal of difference between a critical appraisal of a faith position and a full-on attack, and frankly, mate, you have been repeatedly crossing the line.
Now you've not been around very long (Gregory, ion the other hand, has been around for ages and seems to make a habit out of it), so I'm going to ask nicely: leave it out, will you?
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Xavierite
Shipmate
# 2575
|
Posted
Scot has a point. There are about 30,000 different Protestant denominations, with roughly 270 new ones formed each year (according to The Christian Sourcebook, that is.)
To speak about them as if there is any single belief which will be replicated across all of those denominations is an error Catholics too often fall into.
Posts: 2307 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Chalk up another decisive victory for the Children of the Englightenment.
"Protestantism" has been de-constructed.
Webster's says quote:
; broadly : a Christian not of a Catholic or Eastern church
But now we know better.
It only is a pejorative term used by Catholics to generalize an obscure personal fetish to untold millions of innocent people.
I will never again use the word. Mea culpa.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
I note that, despite your histrionics, you have elected not to answer either of my questions.
--------------------
“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 Ley Druid:
It only is a pejorative term used by Catholics to generalize an obscure personal fetish to untold millions of innocent people.
I will never again use the word. Mea culpa.
I direct you to the last three paragraphs of my last post, and advise you to back the hell off.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Sacraments are sacraments because the Church obeys Christ's intention and will.
On the first Sunday of every month the congregation gathers at my church and the minister says "For I received from the Lord what I also passed on to you: The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, 'This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me' " then takes bread, breaks it and the bread is then distributed among the congregation. And then, he says "In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, 'This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me' " before taking a cup and distributing the (non-alcoholic) wine among the congregation.
As far as I can see we obey the intention and will of Christ when we do this (and, since the words are Pauls from 1 Corinthians, presumably the intention of the apostle); surely this means we are celebrating a sacrament?
Alan
--------------------
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
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
It seems to me that a certain tetchiness has hovered over this thread from an early stage. Ley Druid wrote quote:
My point here has never been to debate the definition of a sacrament. I have said I accept those of others. I have given mine because it was asked of me.
What I feel worthy of debate is the idea of anti-sacramentalism.
But isn't this part of the problem? If we don't have an agreed idea what we are talking about, how on earth is agreement to be reached (or at least the difference to be understood)?
Here are two passages worth reading on the subject. The first is from an Orthodox perspective, the second from a Catholic perspective (from the Catechism actually). I am a member of neither church, but it seems to me that there is considerable agreement, and such ideas are hardly new. If I may be permitted to observe, it seems that the claims made are more than just the ability to convey a theophany. It somehow involves the revealing of God to us in the context of the church - ie the body of the faithful, not in some other context. It also recognises a particular closeness between the signifier and the signified, so we may be bold enough to say that a sacrament effects what it signifies. Not in any magical sense, but simply because God's promise pre-exists. But we have to DO something in order to appropriate it. That doing involves the specific rather than the general.
Ultimately, as I think everyone has agreed, no attempt is being made to bottle God into the sacraments. God can reveal Himself wherever he chooses. Perhaps things become sacramental then because we are able to gain a fleeting glimpse of their true, redeemed nature, a sort of foretaste of something that was always their potential.
Only offered for discussion of course...
Ian
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IanB:
It seems to me that a certain tetchiness has hovered over this thread from an early stage. Ley Druid wrote quote:
My point here has never been to debate the definition of a sacrament. I have said I accept those of others. I have given mine because it was asked of me.
What I feel worthy of debate is the idea of anti-sacramentalism.
But isn't this part of the problem? If we don't have an agreed idea what we are talking about, how on earth is agreement to be reached (or at least the difference to be understood)?
What Ian said.
quote:
God can reveal Himself wherever he chooses. Perhaps things become sacramental then because we are able to gain a fleeting glimpse of their true, redeemed nature, a sort of foretaste of something that was always their potential.
That I like.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Wood likes what Ian has said. Fr. Gregory like what Ian has said. Fr. Gregory likes what Wood has said concerning this.
I shouldn't have mentioned Protestantism here but I am not satisfied with the modern deconstruction of Protestantism as a phenomenon, diverse though it certainly is. I am lighting the fuse on a new thread on this one.
Meanwhile back to this thread and its substantive point(s). In response to you Alan ... a sacrament can be genuine according to our shared criteria but it will not necessarily indicate ecclesial unity which has a wider remit. So, Rome and the Orthodox recognise each others orders and sacraments, but we are not (yet) united.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
As far as I can see we obey the intention and will of Christ when we do this (and, since the words are Pauls from 1 Corinthians, presumably the intention of the apostle); surely this means we are celebrating a sacrament?
I find this thread rather puzzling. As far as I can see the overwhelming majority of protestant churches do have sacraments for just the reason Alan states. They may understand them differently to catholics, but as the blessed St Clive pointed out the command was "take, eat" not "take, understand".
The historic problem with the debate about sacraments, is that the Reformers agreed on the need to replace Aquinas' appropriation of Aristotle with something else but couldn't agree what the something else should be. For those from churches with a more clearly defined view of how the sacraments work, this is doubtless distressing. But assumption that as a corollary of this, that those with a lower understanding of the sacraments are somehow bad, seems to me to be a misuse of the sacraments, however one understands them, and a major contributor to the techiness on this thread that IanB diagnosed in his excellent contribution.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
So after we all agree with Ian we have to ask what would "anti-sacramentalism" be? If you don't think it exists (or can't exist) then your answer is No Fr., it doesn't deny anything because it doesn't exist.
It seems to me, some christians don't use holy water, crucifixes, icons, statues, rosaries, oils, incense, candles and they don't annoint their sick or consecrate their bishops. Do they really accept that these things do what Ian said
quote:
Perhaps things become sacramental then because we are able to gain a fleeting glimpse of their true, redeemed nature, a sort of foretaste of something that was always their potential.
If they do, why don't they use them? Why, instead do they seem to suggest it is better not to use them, and not use anything else material in their place? I'm sure many people would say they are fine for others, but not for me. The question then is why not for you. Not that you're wrong if you don't want to use them, but what is the reason? If they do deny their sacramental nature are they not "anti-sacramentalists"? Are there no anti-sacramentalists out there?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
If they do deny their sacramental nature are they not "anti-sacramentalists"?
No. Under the previously agreed definitions they would be non-sacramentalists.
--------------------
“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
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
quote:
If they do deny their sacramental nature are they not "anti-sacramentalists"? Are there no anti-sacramentalists out there?
You seem to be conflating a number of things. The list of items you recited may be used in sacramental worship, but are not of themselves sacraments - rosaries for example or candles.
Furthermore there is a controversy between catholics and protestants as to the number of sacraments. Many protestants only accept the two Dominical sacraments as sacraments. I don't, myself, agree with this but I don't think that it calls for the definition anti-sacramental. If one denies that something is a member of a class, one is not denying the existence of the class or suggesting the existence of said class is a bad thing.
The reason such things are not used will vary from church to church and will usually be the result of the history and theology of the Church.
quote:
If you don't think it exists (or can't exist) then your answer is No Fr., it doesn't deny anything because it doesn't exist.
I think that that is pretty close. An antisacramentalist, surely, is one who is opposed to the use of, or existence of sacraments. In Christian terms that would be the Salvation Army and the Quakers, and even then, one would have to qualify the term.
As to those who do not believe in the God bearing nature of creation - well, there were Gnostics in the first few centuries of the Churches existence, people who thought that matter was bad. But a belief in the incarnation leads to the view that matter has been redeemed, sanctified and was, partly, the vehicle for human salvation.
People may not believe in your, or Father Gregory's, understanding of the sacraments. As an Anglican catholic I am closer to you than to Wood and Scot, on this issue at least. But I think that Wood and Scot are winning this debate because they are actually discussing Reformed theology of sacrament and matter as it exists in the world. You and Father Gregory seem to postulate a kind of nasty uber-protestant, called an anti-sacramentalist who is responsible for environmental degradation and televangelism. I agree that the anti-sacramentalist is an utterly deplorable creature. But I have yet to meet one.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Professor Waffle
Ley Druid and I keep gnawing away at this bone because we observe that none / other or anti sacramentalists (let's just say those who don't place a great value on sacraments ... not just different but rather a lesser value) are keen to stress the God-bearing character of creation partly in reaction to our criticisms of their own position on particular presences. We regard, however, such reactions as a bit of a smokescreen around the real issue or question:-
We all know God is everywhere (yes ALL of us) ... the point is ... can he be SOMEWHERE and in a particular way?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by Father Gregory:
quote:
Ley Druid and I keep gnawing away at this bone because we observe that none / other or anti sacramentalists (let's just say those who don't place a great value on sacraments ... not just different but rather a lesser value) are keen to stress the God-bearing character of creation partly in reaction to our criticisms of their own position on particular presences. We regard, however, such reactions as a bit of a smokescreen around the real issue or question:-
We all know God is everywhere (yes ALL of us) ... the point is ... can he be SOMEWHERE and in a particular way?
Father Gregory,
I imagine that they are keen to stress the God bearing character of creation because that's what they actually think, whether goaded by you or no.
Can God be SOMEWHERE and in a particular way? Well yes - I imagine that all of us who have stayed this far believe in the Incarnation.
Does belief in the sacraments flow inevitably from belief in the incarnation? For you and I, yes. For others, no.
Which refutes, I think, your initial proposition. Anti-sacramentalism (which isn't, I think we are all agreed, a very good term) is not, actually, a denial of the God-bearing character of creation.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Dear Daisymay
The Incarnation is not a "theory" it is a fact and as such it cannot be separated from the data of Jesus as God the Word made flesh. In Him God and humanity are connected at the ontological level not merely the intentional or by way of exemplarism. The Incarnation means that in Him God was "somewhere" and not only "everywhere." This is the connection I was making in sacramentalism between the universal and the particular. Furthermore as "bearers of the Holy Spirit" we are to become by grace what He is by nature.
But God was also everywhere. You're not getting into that heresy (can't remember its name:( - modalism or something) that says that God was present separately in different guises?
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Sacraments are sacraments because the Church obeys Christ's intention and will.
Only if you think that sacraments are Christ's intention and will.
I don't think they are. What some call "sacraments" I call "ordinances."
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Daisy May
Modalism was a heresy of the Trinity and a common western problem I might add. The Orthodox can hardly be accused of heresy concerning the Trinity. Modalism anyway is not about the presence of God but concerns the idea that God is sequentially but not eternally Father, Son and Holy Spirit. There is a spatial variant that talks of God having "masks." Barth came pretty near to modalism when he talked about "modes of being." It has nothing to do with this issue though.
As to terminology ... that really doesn't matter. We call them "mysteries" anyway, not sacraments. What does matter is that they are God's provision for us through his Church.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Professor Yaffle:
Father Gregory,
I imagine that they are keen to stress the God bearing character of creation because that's what they actually think, whether goaded by you or no.
Can God be SOMEWHERE and in a particular way? Well yes - I imagine that all of us who have stayed this far believe in the Incarnation.
Does belief in the sacraments flow inevitably from belief in the incarnation? For you and I, yes. For others, no.
Which refutes, I think, your initial proposition. Anti-sacramentalism (which isn't, I think we are all agreed, a very good term) is not, actually, a denial of the God-bearing character of creation.
stands up, cheers loudly
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
stands up, cheers loudly
Applause! (Fireworks going off in the background.)
--------------------
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 Gregory:
Ley Druid and I keep gnawing away at this bone because we observe that none / other or anti sacramentalists (let's just say those who don't place a great value on sacraments ... not just different but rather a lesser value) are keen to stress the God-bearing character of creation partly in reaction to our criticisms of their own position on particular presences. We regard, however, such reactions as a bit of a smokescreen around the real issue or question:-
We all know God is everywhere (yes ALL of us) ... the point is ... can he be SOMEWHERE and in a particular way?
Gregory,
I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you simply weren't paying attention.
I'm going to quote myself here:
quote:
What I said was, everything is equally able to be a vessel of God's presence. But - and you may at least agree with me partially on this one - the sacrament is at least partly in the doing, isn't it?
Jesus says, "do this in memory of me", and he means do something. An Orthodox sacrament is not a sacrament until it has been blessed by a priest, is it? Similarly, the Baptist sacrament of Communion is only a sacrament inasmuch as we are doing it together. The ritual is part of the sacrament.
You can't simply go, "this object is a sacrament". The object AND the ritual are the sacrament for you; for me it's the ritual that's the sacrament.
Sure God can REVEAL himself somewhere more than He REVEALS himself elsewhere, but to say that he is more PRESENT somewhere more than others is daft, because that denies God's omnipresence.
We all believe that He reveals himself in the Sacraments.
Ley Druid, I do not take kindly to being ignored. Engage with our arguments or shut up.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
I was drawn into this thread from its scion about lampooning Protestants who protest being called Protestants. I am revisiting The Ship after a long, long hiatus. Pardon the intrusion; I won’t stay long.
I remember the first time I saw my mother snarl in hatred. I was perhaps 5 and asked why the Lutherans, whose church was across the street from our church, came out in two groups. First, a dozen or so adults (mostly men) came out at noon, and smoked cigarettes on the steps. Then, 20 minutes later the rest of the church came out while the first group immediately dropped their cigarettes and crushed them on the ground.
“The cigarette group got their little taste of Jesus in a snort of wine,” she spat. “That’s all they’re there for every week; to pretend they’re saved by taking communion. The first group walks up and takes it from the priest, then they walk right out and smoke their cigarettes. The rest stay for the ending. I tell you Lutherans are as bad as Catholics! Do you see the little statues on their dashboards? They call themselves Protestants; they say they’re free from The Law and look at them! They can smoke cigarettes, get cancer, drive their big, fancy cars that they got by lying and cheating in the Business World because they ate their little piece of Jesus and have Mary sitting on the dashboard. That’s why we only take communion once a month, and we don’t make such a big deal about it. The bread and the grape juice (a lot of them are alcoholics too) are symbols; they’re not magic pieces of the body and blood of Christ…look where it leads…cancer! Idolotry! Big Business! Drunk Drivers!”
Now I’ve heard the other side from Father Gregory:
quote:
“Anti-sacramentalism has no room for a doctrine of creation within the salvation schema. We are paying for that narrowness today with our privatised world-injurious rapaciousness.”
quote:
“According to …(anti-sacramentalism) God is only present APART from the material realm. In consequence the doctrines of creation and salvation are separated. By so doing only humans can be saved and transformed. Creation can "go hang" and we can pollute it, abuse it and manipulate it to our own selfish ends with impunity.”
It takes the tragically distorted perspective of a religious zealot to find in specific differences of doctrine the root of complex, world-wide problems and evils. Father Gregory, “anti-sacramentalism” is not the cause of environmental rape and neither "sacramentalism" nor Eastern Orthodoxy are the cures.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
Just come back from an alchemical psychotherapy class (don't tell Deserted ) and got a new aspect of this.
Once we have gone through the descent into the abyss, solutio - Psalm 69 was quoted:
"Save me my God!
"For the waters have come up to my neck.
"I sink in deep mire,
"Where there is no foothold;
"I have come into deep waters,
"And the flood sweeps over me.
"I am weary with my crying;
"My throat is parched.
"My eyes grow dim with waiting for my God."
and Psalm 130;
"Out of the depths I cry to thee, O Lord!"
we are reborn (our ego is reborn as a spiritual part of us), we are united with God in cunjunctio, our ego is united with our true self in conjunctio, and we forever hold within ourselves the awareness of God, the Divine, in the whole of creation. We may go through different emotions and experiences, but that deep foundational knowledge is always there.
Now, some of that may be disputable, but it has illustrated to me that the awareness of God in creation is different in different people - and that we all perceive God and creation differently according to our tempraments and personalities. And, that awareness is also probably a mystical thing. It may depend on what kind of mystical experiences we have, but all Christians IMO are mystics.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
I was drawn into this thread from its scion about lampooning Protestants who protest being called Protestants. I am revisiting The Ship after a long, long hiatus. Pardon the intrusion; I won’t stay long.
No, don't go - come over to the playhouse. I bet you can bring some interesting and digestible treats. ![[Sunny]](graemlins/flowerface.gif)
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
What is the playhouse?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
