|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Anti-sacramentalism is a denial of the God-bearing character of Creation
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Dear Father Gregory
I would say that the divine action is in the action of the community breaking and sharing bread. I do not believe it is like other shared meals though it has similarities to that. Why if it was like that is the proclamation of the Word so important before it?
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
God is equally present in the breaking of the Word as He is in the breaking of the Bread. We do go further though. He is present in the bread broken and in the Word proclaimed. It is not just our actions that are the loci of the divine presence but the appointed means as well .... bread, Word. That was why I suggested that a sacramental approach (to BOTH Word and Communion) by affirming the PRIOR divine presence affirms materiality as a vehicle of the divine presence .... and of course action. I don't think that this though can be exhaustively described simply by what WE do. No act of worship that is truly sacramental can.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Dear Father Gregory
I am dropping out. If this fails I will really need to clear my head before I reply again. We see the divine in the COMMUNAL ACTION of sharing bread your stance to us put the divine in the BREAD that is broke.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
I agree with Jengie's analysis - it's the communal action not the object that is important
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
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Matt
In my very laboured way that was what I was trying to get at in my OP. If "things" themselves lose their sacred character and become merely instrumental to our actions then we can manipulate the arrangements (beer instad of wine etc) or even abandon them and somehow try to keep the actions ethically (Salvation Army). Moreover, if "things" lose their sacred quality don't we tend to revere the material realm less? It's a psychologically subtle but, I believe, quite powerful shift in how we relate to the world, the material world that is as transfigured by the spiritual ... a return to its natural Edenic state.
--------------------
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 Fr. Gregory:
Please remember that I was baptised in the Anglican Church, went to an Anglican Church School, was converted in an evangelical Anglican tradition, moved into Anglo-Catholicism, experienced charismatic renewal and was drawn to Orthodoxy through (from want of a better word) classical Anglicanism. In all that time I had extensive ecumenical contacts with Protestant Churches and in my hot rodding phase worshipped in a Pentecostal fellowship as well. Does that count as giving me an awareness of western and Protestant theology and spirituality?
Well of course it does. But you've spent most of your time in Anglican and Orthodox churches, which are of course both sacramental traditions. And when you were having all those ecumenical contacts with protestant churches, did you go around telling them they were denying the God-bearing nature of creation?
I don't know how the Pentecostals would feel about being associated with hot-rodding, but it gave me my first good laugh of the day! Thanks.
quote:
The other is a niggle. It is a matter of common courtesy and it applies to one or two others here. There are two ways of addressing a priest in the Orthodox Church ....
either ... Father Gregory
or ... the unworthy priest Gregory (in full)
Please choose which one you prefer. I would be honoured if you used the second because it is true and it should present no crisis of Protestant conscience.
I will probably avoid using your name altogether, then. You are not my priest. You have posted so condescendingly so many times that it chaps my hide to call you "Father," and I refuse to do so.
quote:
Now the nice bit.
Well, sort of.
quote:
I thoroughly enjoyed, affirmed and was inspired by your own appreciation of sacramentalism. I don't think, however, that being critical of negative positions is out of order as an positive statement. Anti-sacramentalism does, it seems to me, indicate an uneasiness with seeing material things as vehicles of grace. I think we would honour the earth more if we PRACTISED the vision of its God-bearing characteristics in PARTICULAR AS WELL As universal ways.
True anti-sacramentalism does indicate an uneasiness with seeing material things as vehicles of grace. But the traditions you've been trying to tar with the anti-sacramentalist brush are not in fact anti-sacramentalist. It's already been explained again and again, and no one here has claimed to be anti-sacramentalist, so there's really no argument here, unless you continue to say that some protestant traditions believe things that people from various protestant traditions keep saying that they don't.
And since you are repeating something you've already said, I'll repeat something I've already said: the most God-in-creation-denying, mind/body split-affirming statements I've ever heard made by a Christian came from an Orthodox priest. I by no means impute such views to you. My point is simply that participating in a tradition that emphasizes the sacraments by no means prevents one from despising God's good creation.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I totally agree with this ....
quote:
My point is simply that participating in a tradition that emphasizes the sacraments by no means prevents one from despising God's good creation.
BUT ... I'm sorry but you cannot possibly know which Protestant traditions I have had proper exposure to and which I haven't. In the US for example Episcopalianism is generally far more liturgical and sacramental than in the UK, (albeit more "liberal.") I have had first hand encounter with many Anglicans who believe that since being saved is the most important thing, creation theology is not at the forefront. My exposure IN Pentecostalism showed me Protestant Christian traditions that emphasised personal subjective religious experience at the expense of social responsibility. No one in their right minds would say that ALL Anglicans or ALL Pentecostals were like this but I do maintain that a non-sacramental (which is effectively anti in my book) loses sight of creation. Interestingly, Quakers who are very committed to creation theology do so now largely on an ethical basis only. Is that that because spirit and matter are incompatible? Same point really.
Since it might be considered rude to avoid all use of first names might you call me Revd. Hallam or simply Hallam? At least everyone would know whom you're talking to, (BTW ... do you apply the non use of Father to all clergy who are not your priests or is it just because I get on your nerves?)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Dear Father Gregory
I have come to the conclusion that I have wasted my breath trying to make something that is as clear as daylight from my tradition open to you.
I am sorry I bothered. The difference in our traditions even when I go to my utmost to bring it into words you might understand is to great a bridge for us to cross.
I think that from the perspective of one who may be labelled anti-sacrametal and has tried hard I must say that unless the Holy Spirit enlightens you to our traditions you are unable to understand it. In this I hope he finds more fluent speakers than I. Ecumenical dialogue makes no difference if conducted with out a common language.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
I totally agree with this ....
quote:
My point is simply that participating in a tradition that emphasizes the sacraments by no means prevents one from despising God's good creation.
BUT ... I'm sorry but you cannot possibly know which Protestant traditions I have had proper exposure to and which I haven't.
I don't think I said I knew any such thing. All I meant is that you aren't protestant, obviously, while other people here are. Not that you can't criticize other people's traditions. But when they say, look, we don't deny that God is present in creation, and you keep saying they do, I'm going to go with their representation of the implications of their beliefs rather than yours.
quote:
In the US for example Episcopalianism is generally far more liturgical and sacramental than in the UK, (albeit more "liberal.") I have had first hand encounter with many Anglicans who believe that since being saved is the most important thing, creation theology is not at the forefront.
Speaking as a liberal US Episcopalian ... eek! Incarnational theology is central to Anglicanism, I think, so even if one goes the Augustinian route (and I agree with you that this is a Bad Idea) with the idea of original sin, that creation started off as a good thing (God said so in Genesis 1) and that creation was further graced by the Incarnation really should be near and dear to the heart of all Anglicans.
quote:
My exposure IN Pentecostalism showed me Protestant Christian traditions that emphasised personal subjective religious experience at the expense of social responsibility. No one in their right minds would say that ALL Anglicans or ALL Pentecostals were like this but I do maintain that a non-sacramental (which is effectively anti in my book) loses sight of creation.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree on the anti- and non- thing.
quote:
Interestingly, Quakers who are very committed to creation theology do so now largely on an ethical basis only. Is that that because spirit and matter are incompatible? Same point really.
Dunno.
quote:
Since it might be considered rude to avoid all use of first names might you call me Revd. Hallam or simply Hallam? At least everyone would know whom you're talking to
Would you like to call me Ms. Warkentin? Or simply Warkentin? Hmmm ... maybe I should have finished my dissertation after all.
quote:
(BTW ... do you apply the non use of Father to all clergy who are not your priests or is it just because I get on your nerves?)
As I work at the largest downtown church in town, which is frequently the site of ecumenical and interfaith events, at work I call clergy whatever they ask to be called. Some Episcopal priests, including my own, prefer not to be called Father (though our last parish priest, Mary, answered readily to "Father Mary"!), so in parish and diocesan contexts I call clergy what they ask to be called, and default to "Father" and "Mother" when I don't know.
But in my entirely personal life, when people call me by my first name, I call them by their first names.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Alright. It was presumptuous of me. From now on I'll call you by your surname or Sister Ruth. Which do you prefer?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
Personally, I call you Fr Gregory because that is your screen name but if I met you it wouldn't even enter my mind to call you 'Father' but that is the same with all clergy, you see I am an equal opportunities annoying person.
I have two Fathers one on earth and one in heaven my opinions about clergy who insist on 'Father' for a title are not appropriate for purgatory.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Alright. It was presumptuous of me. From now on I'll call you by your surname or Sister Ruth. Which do you prefer?
I gotta give it to you, you have the patience of Job!
Sister Ruth quite appeals to me. I will happily call you Father Gregory if you call me Sister Ruth.
This also quite appeals to me:
quote:
If "things" themselves lose their sacred character and become merely instrumental to our actions then we can manipulate the arrangements (beer instad of wine etc) or even abandon them and somehow try to keep the actions ethically (Salvation Army). Moreover, if "things" lose their sacred quality don't we tend to revere the material realm less? It's a psychologically subtle but, I believe, quite powerful shift in how we relate to the world, the material world that is as transfigured by the spiritual ... a return to its natural Edenic state.
Could you explain a bit more about why you think the ethical thing is not enough? I suspect I agree, but am not entirely sure. Do you think the Salvation Army and the Quakers are reading off the same page?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Oh, my side hurts from laughing. But please continue, this is wonderful therapy for me.
Most Honored Esteemed and Right Revd. Hallam, it would be my pleasure to call you "Father." Indeed, if it pleases you I will call you "Dad." It is rare for me to find someone who so reminds me of my Pentecostal relatives. And now I read:
quote:
in my hot rodding phase worshipped in a Pentecostal fellowship as well.
Perhaps I have been given the gift of "discernment of spirits." I knew I was talking to a Pentecostal in Orthodox robing.
In all candor Revd. Hallam, it seems as though the time is ripe to step back and review your history of searching from one set viewpoint to another, each time convinced that now you have alighted on the exact one that you needed all along and that everyone needs. That's how I read your story. We all know something about that search and the drive for correctness and rightness along with a yearning for others to share the exact same viewpoint. Surely, this is the Utopia we all long for and the Heaven that most Christians believe in.
But it is not reality. Continuing your curt, defensive, and at times petulant posts runs the risk of making you into a caricature of yourself. People can't help but snicker. Especially when you resort to, "you know I am a Reverend." I imagine Jesus under questioning answering with, "Hey, that's 'Messiah' to you, bub."
My basic belief in the underlying goodness of people says that you have something much better inside you.
Somewhere.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I want to come to Father Gregory's defence here. An ordained priest within certain traditions is traditionally referred to as Father, that has gone on for centuries and it's a matter of respect, even for members of churches which don't have that tradition, that he has the right to that title.
Also, Fr. Gregory is very passionate in his beliefs, which is an essential quality for a priest whose job it is, among other things to witness and teach the faith to others. I envy him his certitudes. I've been chasing Jesus since the age of 12(I'm now 48) and He remains an enigna to me yet. I hold fast to Him like Jacob when he wrestled with God, "I will not let you go unless you bless me."(Gen32.26)
Fr. Gregory is one of the most valuable contributors to this forum who comes in for some lampooning because of his total dedication to his church and its viewpoint. I've learned a lot from him over the two years I've been debating with him, and I'm very grateful to him for all his invaluable advice.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
OK, I'll assume that I just caught Fr. Gregory at a bad moment and fault myself for making too close an association between him and others in my past and of having a bit too much fun while I was doing it.
My apologies Fr. Gregory.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear JimT
No need to apologise but if there was I would forgive you anyway. Forgiveness is more fun. I do owe you an explanation though (and perhaps Sister Ruth as well).
I am the little shit that God loves. I am his unworthy priest ... but I know that I am quick to anger, impatient and overcome often by my passions. The priesthood I hold (like yours) is not mine but Christ's. If I wasn't continually reminded of what a fraud I am in holding this office I would not be (relatively) safe in handling it. It is not because I want any honour ... far from it. There are times when I would rather return to the lay state and assume comfortable anonymous obscurity. I don't because I believe (for the time being) that God wants me here doing this thing. That's what it's like. Mostly I enjoy it. Other times I can only see a cross. But it is right to be here with that absurd title. A father I must be.
Dear Sister Ruth
It's pretty dangerous isn't it to say that the ethical thing is not enough. It's the cup of cold water not the fancy theology on the porcelain after all. However, I think that Christian ethical behaviour does depend on a Christian ethical heart and mind. Matters of faith and worship must be material to that (pun intended).
Dear Paul
Oooerr! I'm embarrassed but thanks anyway. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Dear Father Gregory
All your replies show you do not know what I am getting at.
Sorry.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear Jengie
You may console yourself thinking that but I DO know what you're getting at. It's just not my perspective that's all. I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
I am the little shit that God loves.
Can't let this one go.
You are the unique wonderful person that God loves.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Well thank you Daisymay but I KNOW what I am. That doesn't change my knowledge of God's infinite love for me one little bit. It just makes it even more amazing!
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Fr. Gregory,
You have given one of the most gracious acceptances of apology that I have heard, and I thank you for that. If I may press, can you list among your faults (as I do among mine) that in the area of allowing oneself to become "overcome by emotion" it is easy for a strongly-opinionated person to ascribe too much importance to a single point of difference with other people? I still think that this thread is premised on overstatement and I've not gotten a clear indication that you have backed off from it at all.
Now that we are in a bit more charity with one another, let me ask this. Suppose that I am a Christian who sees taking communion as a metaphysical act, not a physical one at all. While I am eating the bread and drinking the wine, I reflect very deeply on the thought that my soul needs food exactly as my body does. I think about how my soul needs to "feed upon" the words, the thoughts, the very life of Christ and assimilate it into my own soul. I can physically feel it happening in my soul as I feel it happening in my body. I come away regenerated and transformed spiritually.
Now I can see how you would take a position that says, "Oh but you would get so much more out of it if you could drop the metaphysics and believe that it is a physical process" but to demonize my experience as "denying the God-bearing character of Creation" and speculating that it leaves me open to environmental rape, etc. is too much. Isn't that a clear indication that you have allowed yourself too much emotion? Too much positive emotion for your point of view and too much negative emotion for the other side?
Jim
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
Well thank you Daisymay but I KNOW what I am. That doesn't change my knowledge of God's infinite love for me one little bit. It just makes it even more amazing!
And the God-bearing aspect of your humanity? Your essence being the image of God?
God's love for you means God knows more truly than you who you are.
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
And the God-bearing aspect of your humanity? Your essence being the image of God?
God's love for you means God knows more truly than you who you are.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif) Oh, no, Fr. G--you're a *sacrament*! ![[Smile]](smile.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
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Having just returned from a mini-vacation with my family, I was most surprised to find out that Ley Druid has such a low opinion of me. I've just spent the better part of an hour in a darkened room hugging my blankie and trying to stop the tears.
RuthW, thank you.
Ley Druid, despite your unwarranted, unannounced, unnecessary and unimaginitive abuse of me, I owe you thanks. Since I have no knowledge of what goes on in the Roman Catholic Church, your re-definition of the topic has given me a perfect excuse for never again wasting time on this God-forsaken thread.
Since I have no desire to disrupt the newly achieved ecumenical warm-fuzziness, I will now depart without any further ado.
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
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Scot:
[QB]Having just returned from a mini-vacation with my family, I was most surprised to find out that Ley Druid has such a low opinion of me. I've just spent the better part of an hour in a darkened room hugging my blankie and trying to stop the tears.
RuthW, thank you.
You're welcome.
And thanks for the best laugh I've had today!
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
JimT
I can't speak for an Orthodox priest, but though I'm a sacramentalist, my view on the means by which we receive the Body and Blood of Christ doesn't differ that much from yours. I believe the presence to be metaphysical or mystical. Some of the excesses of medieval catholicism with images of bleeding hostswere responsible for the "double miracle" definition of transubstantiation by the RC church, where one miracle turns the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood and the other miracle makes it still look and taste like bread and wine.
To me that requires a level of mental tortuology which I'm incapable of. I believe that it's in a mystical way that the consecrated elements become the Body and Blood, and I also believe that in transformation in the consciousness of those partaking is necessary in order to receive all the benfits of His passion. From the way you described it, I don't think we would differ much on this issue.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
Suppose that I am a Christian who sees taking communion as a metaphysical act, not a physical one at all. While I am eating the bread and drinking the wine, I reflect very deeply on the thought that my soul needs food exactly as my body does. I think about how my soul needs to "feed upon" the words, the thoughts, the very life of Christ and assimilate it into my own soul. I can physically feel it happening in my soul as I feel it happening in my body. I come away regenerated and transformed spiritually.
Now I can see how you would take a position that says, "Oh but you would get so much more out of it if you could drop the metaphysics and believe that it is a physical process"
But if it is a physical process won't you be getting the benefit however you believe it to work?
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Ken,
The viewpoint I describe is for the sake of argument and discussion, but to answer your question, the viewpoint is that benefit can be derived from the physical analogy underscoring a metaphysical point that is brought very far forward into consciousness. Without the analogy, simply eating bread and wine becomes a purely physical act with no spiritual benefit (the eating and drinking "unworthily" that Paul refers to.
Jim
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
Dear JimT
We don't disagree. The physical feeding on bread and wine is linked directly into the spiritual feeding and it is that of course that saves insofar as we receive Christ the Living Bread. Not for nothing do we call his sacrifice presented in the Eucharist "bloodless" or "unbloody." It's not my emotions BTW that get in the way. It's my sinfulness .... which reminds me Daisymay ... yes I am God-bearing like everyone else but insofar as I obscure that I still insist that the little shit part of me is loved by God just as much as the nice bits. Not that ke loves sin but he loves me as a sinner so that I might have the potential to become a saint. I am as far off that as anyone living; and that's not false humility either.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
So Fr. Gregory, the title of this thread: is it an exaggeration?
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
I've been celebrating at St George's in Montreal during their interregnum over the last five weeks and finally got a sunday off. My daughter, the Rabblet, is sorta 50/50 when it comes to church these days and so I took her along to a little Mennonite church on the Plateau which I'm quite fond of attending (occasionally) wherein there are heaps of young people her age - many of them from other countries working with the Mennonite Volunteer Service. The pastor there is an able preacher and the congregation sings a capella hymns in four part harmony. Given that it was Thanksgiving Sunday it was also 'communion sunday' - something they do, I gather, every month or so.
Are we limiting the set of 'anti-sacramentalist' churches to include, for example, the Salvatian Army with their regrettable negligence of this whole side of Christian existence? If so the five solid pages of posts in this thread are a regrettable overreaction. The mennonites with their big loaf of bread and little pottery shot glasses of Welches Grape Juice and their reading of 1st Corinthians 11:23ff - the whole schmoo - would certainly understand themselves in some sort of continuity with the earliest traditions and even an anglican priest joining them on the occasional sunday would not see them described by the title of this thread.
Does God show mercy to German anabaptists and is Christ present at their table?
just wondering
Raspberry Rabbit
Montreal, QC
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
And they are exactly the sort of people I was defending, fer cryin' out loud!
Ruth
the W stands for Warkentin - a fine old Mennonite name
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
... and I was attacking them? No, I am making a case for saying that anti-sacramentalism is not eco-friendly because it denies the God-bearing character of creation. It is not for me or anyone else to judge what is or isn't going on in other churchs' services. I am interested in what motivates people to be nervous about using "things" in services and who try and interiorise everything.
--------------------
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
Father Gregory,
It seems from the beginning some people have taken offense to your OP and have not liked the term "anti-sacramentalism". Why do you think this might be?
I have suggested their might be examples of anti-sacramentalism in the RCC. I suspect you might be able to provide examples of this tendency in the long and venerable history of the Orthodox (Leo III comes to mind and even these priests that want to ditch their robes and hats might be an example yahoo) Why have others so vigorously protested your use of this term?
Others have suggested that you might take offence to an OP along the lines of "Sacramentalism is a denial of the God-bearing character of ..." Would that offend you? Would you be offended by the suggestion that sacramentalism can be taken too far, leading to superstition or idolatry? Would that lead you to deny the existence of sacramentalism or the unfairness of people labelling you "Orthodox"?
Thank you for an enlightening debate.
--------------------------------------------
mas vale ponerse una vez colorado,
que ciento amarillo o descolorido
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
... and I was attacking them? No, I am making a case for saying that anti-sacramentalism is not eco-friendly because it denies the God-bearing character of creation. It is not for me or anyone else to judge what is or isn't going on in other churchs' services. I am interested in what motivates people to be nervous about using "things" in services and who try and interiorise everything.
You said the Mennonite communion service sounded "Orthodox" (which made me smile - I was imagining my Mennonite relatives' reaction to being called big-O "Orthodox"!). Just following the logic (and tongue in cheek) - if the Mennonite communion service is "Orthodox," the Mennonites can't be anti-sacramental, then, can they? And if the Mennonites aren't anti-sacramental by your definition, then who is? You really can't get much more Protestant than the Mennonites!
As to why people are nervous about using "things" in worship, I think it's partly fear of falling into idolatry and, honestly, partly the result of the anti-Catholicism of the Reformers. Not that Protestants are necessarily anti-Catholic now (though some are, as we've seen on these boards). But Protestants are heirs to a tradition which started off defining itself in large part as "not Catholic."
The idolatry thing is a legitimate fear, I think, based on the way some people in my parish have made idols of the things we use in our worship. The "let's not do it because the Catholics do it" thing is ridiculous, and fortunately is in decline.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
And you, Ley Druid, owe Scot, Wood, golden_key and me an apology.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raspberry Rabbit
Will preach for food
# 3080
|
Posted
Wow. 256 posts into the thread and
the Mennonites are declared to have an orthodox sacramental theology,
the straw man crumbles and
we clutch vainly for somebody who might actually be antisacramental. Sounds a bit like Senator McCarthy patting his breast pocket and saying
'I have a list......'
What a colossal waste of air.
Do we do this often?
Glad he didn't jump in earlier
Raspberry Rabbit
Montreal, QC
--------------------
...naked pirates not respecting boundaries...
(((BLOG)))
Posts: 2215 | From: In the middle of France | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Alan Cresswell said quote:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
But Scot, Wood, RuthW, golden_key you are not here. You couldn't cut it. I would like everybody reading this post to know that these people Scot, Wood, RuthW, golden_key would prefer to make light of Father Gregory than argue with me. I don't think they're capable.
Now hold on a minute there. To say that individual shipmates can't "cut it" or are not capable of debating with you certainly comes under the Third Commandment - "Attack the issue, not the person". Experience of their contributions on these boards indicates to me that they are more than capable of arguing their ground.
If anyone felt this a personal attack, I apologize. I am fond of quoting others to show that I am listening. I fail to see how responses such as quote:
And since we're not "papists", why should we be interested in debating an RC problem?
quote:
It's just that it's not worth it.
quote:
I'm now abandoning this intellectual trainwreck of a thread.
quote:
Since I have no knowledge of what goes on in the Roman Catholic Church, your re-definition of the topic has given me a perfect excuse for never again wasting time on this God-forsaken thread.
show me how these people are capable of argument. They are certainly under no obligation to do so. RuthW is quite right when she says quote:
But perhaps you should take more care before you say why people are posting or not posting.
I apologize if my presumption has caused offense. I offered to discuss anti-sacramentalism in the RCC (because outside the RCC was offensive), where I believe antisacramentalism is no more a straw-man than anticlericalism, anticatholicism, or antisemitism. No one has to do anything in response to what I might say, but I fail to see how not debating something is debating.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
Ley Druid, I can see that composing your response has consumed time which could have been spent crafting reasonable arguments. I repent of my part in this sordid affair and beg your forgiveness for the intrusion.
With reciprocal sincerity,
scot
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Ley Druid--
You said:
I don't like to call people stupid. It's not nice to make fun of the mentally retarded.
and
But Scot, Wood, RuthW, golden_key you are not here. You couldn't cut it. I would like everybody reading this post to know that these people Scot, Wood, RuthW, golden_key would prefer to make light of Father Gregory than argue with me. I don't think they're capable.
I replied:
So...rather than actually listening to what we have to say, you're calling us out???
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
LD, as many of us have told you in many ways, on this thread and elsewhere, there are serious problems with your style of "debate". You kick. You chew. You ignore. You do not play nicely. Then you complain that no one wants to play.
And since we're not "papists", why should we be interested in debating an RC problem?
LD, the way you treat others is unacceptable. Calling people stupid, even in a convoluted but blatant way, is not good.
We have told you this over and over. We are not playing with you, or baiting you. We are quite serious.
I don't know whether you don't get it, or don't want to get it.
But get 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
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
but I fail to see how not debating something is debating.
Translation: "Hey, Kettle! Pot here! You're black, you know."
Moron.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Okay, that's it. See you in hell, Ley Druid. There'll be a thread with your name on it there.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raspberry Rabbit:
Wow. 256 posts into the thread and
the Mennonites are declared to have an orthodox sacramental theology,
the straw man crumbles and
we clutch vainly for somebody who might actually be antisacramental. Sounds a bit like Senator McCarthy patting his breast pocket and saying
'I have a list......'
What a colossal waste of air.
Do we do this often?
Glad he didn't jump in earlier
I'm still boggling at the thought of the my Krimmer Mennonite Brethren relatives' reaction to getting a thumbs up from an Orthodox priest - I'm sure they'd think they were doing something wrong! And still wondering which Christians truly are anti-sacramental.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it McCarthyism, though. Can't quite picture Fr. Gregory, Ley Druid, et al. hauling people in front of the committee and interrogating them: "Are you now or have you ever been an anti-sacramentalist?"
But it's worth a shot ...
Fr. Gregory [banging the table]: Sister Ruth, we have proof - proof, I tell you! - that you have attended anti-sacramentalist cell meetings. Name the other members of the cell. Who was your contact?
Ruth squirms in her seat, remembering the furtive sips of Welch's from the mini shot glasses, the little pillows of bread passed around in the pews, the minister in a suit and tie. But then a sudden thought ...
Ruth: Fr. Gregory, you of all people should know better! I know you've attended Pentecostal services. You may as well admit it - I have the transcript of your confession!
Ruth waves paper in the air. Fr. Gregory turns pale, clutches his chest
Fr. Gregory [faintly]: Mere ... uh, youthful indiscretion ... I was misled ... collapses
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Wondering if Quakerism counts as anti-sacrametalism. They certainly have no formal sacrament but that would make the opposite true of the original OP.
From the little time I have spent amongst them; they seem to me to be far far far more open to the God bearing character of Creation than any more formal sacramental groupings. They make a positive theme of it in their spirituality.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Believe it or not, I have been thinking about this thread a great deal in the last three days. It occurred to me that a useful frame work for understanding the prior debate and potentially moving forward are the classic elements of induction and deduction.
Inductive arguments:
Fr. Gregory notices specific instances of reluctance on the part of Christians in Protestant denomination to accept a priest’s special anointing of physical objects as being objects imbued with Godliness for a Godly purpose. Since the objects and procedures are called “sacraments” the full belief in them is called “sacramentalism” and the reluctance to fully embrace them “anti-sacramentalism.” This general concept of “anti-sacramentalism” arising as it does from particulars, does not follow from logical necessity, as is the case with all inductive reasoning. Like all induction, the principle is more general than the specific observations from which it was constructed so it cannot follow from logical necessity. Having a tentative general principal called “anti-sacramentalism” Fr. Gregory attempts to succinctly characterize what properties this general principal has. It seems to him that the general principal is that anyone within a Protestant faith must not believe that physical objects ever have any capability to reflect the presence of God. He states his premise: “Anti-sacramentalism is the denial of the God-bearing character of creation.”
Ley Druid, in his original post, expands the general principal of “anti-sacramentalism” beyond its putative assertion of the impossibility of any element of creation allowing an encounter with God and adds one more pernicious characteristic (reserving the right to add more): he says that it suggests that some Godly encounters might involve something that does not exists. When asked for the specific from which this general principle is induced, he offers a quote from a Baptist minister saying that while the local Church is visible and has concrete existence, there is such a thing as a “universal Church” which is a conception of the mind.
Deductive arguments
Fr. Gregory deduces that if Protestantism has a general principal of denying the God-bearing character of creation, it can be deduced that Protestants will have less reverence for the environment. When compelling evidence is offered to the contrary he eventually backs off to “anti-sacramentalism at least threatens the environment” because he still holds to his original premise instead of rejecting it. Unfortunately, this is a hypothesis that cannot easily be debated because the “threat” he proposes is latent.
From what I can tell, Ley Druid never made any deductive arguments to test the tentative general principal. Instead, he rapidly expanded the general principal with additional quotes from Protestants, and then attempted to show that these additional pieces of evidence prove by deductive necessity that the general principal is proven. From there, it got ugly.
My take
The premise of this thread is an inductive assertion and can never be proven by logical necessity. It can be tested by hypothesis and deduction and so far it has failed. Therefore, it should be rejected or modified.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
The other thread was closed before I got to it, so please forgive me for posting this here.
Ley Druid, thank you for your most gracious apology. I welcome and accept it wholeheartedly.
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
