|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Anti-sacramentalism is a denial of the God-bearing character of Creation
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by JimT:
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 exist. 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
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Damn. I was trying to fix a typo ("exists" should be "exist"). Forgive me for I obviously don't know what I'm doing.
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Thank you JimT for another brilliant post. I hope it will allow me to deal with my frustration in a more constructive manner.
Here is my deductive argument if anyone cares:
X=antisacramentalism
Y=denial of the God-bearing character of creation
modus tollens:
Premise 1. If X happens then Y happens
Premise 2. Y did not happen
Conclusion: Therefore X did not happen
To reject premise 1 one has to show how Y did not happen, but X did happen. Given the dislike for X I don't see anybody else suggesting X happened.
Anything which affirms the God-bearing character of creation will not be antisacramentalism. So everybody's posts showing the varied use of material things in worship all suggested a lack of anti-sacramentalism. THIS VALIDATES premise 1.
modus ponens:
Premise 1. If X happens then Y happens
Premise 2. X happened
Conclusion: Therefore Y happened
IF someone could show that X happened, but Y did not happen, then premise 1 would be false and Fr. Gregory and I would be quite wrong.
This is the reason I offered the example of an iconoclast. If it could be shown how an iconoclast (example of X) was not guilty of Y, I would be wrong.
Suggesting that because Y happens and X did not happen therefore Premise 1 is untrue is fallacious. Fr. Gregory said if X then Y, not if Y then X. So anti-environmental Russians who are sacramentalists are a RED herring.
Suggesting that because X doesn't happen and Y doesn't happen therefore premise 1 is untrue is also fallacious. Example: 1. dogs are animals 2. snoopy is a dog C. snoopy is an animal. Someone could quite plausibly suggest that snoopy is a cartoon and therefore not an animal, but that does not invalidate the premise that dogs are animals. Someone could suggest that X doesn't apply to them so they do not do Y, that doesn't invalidate if X then Y.
In conclusion I quoted the Holy Father to suggest that for Catholics quote:
God's plan is sacramental, that is, he makes himself present in a finite figure such as the humanity of Jesus or the sacramental signs of the Church.
For Catholics, to reject the necessity or efficacy of those sacramental signs is to deny the God-bearing character of creation (the way he makes himself present in a finite figure). I'm not judging what anybody else is doing, but I don't think their arguments logically compel me to abandon the premise.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
daisymay
St Elmo's Fire
# 1480
|
Posted
If an iconoclast smashed some object or other of idolatory (got to be in the mind of an iconoclast here ![[Wink]](wink.gif) ) and then carefully recycled the remains, or set up a community project helping the makers of said object to re-establish themselves in a profitable, green, enterprise, then they would be exemplars of how to treat creation.
Any artists want to help decorate the play-house?
--------------------
London
Flickr fotos
Posts: 11224 | From: London - originally Dundee, Blairgowrie etc... | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
Interesting post. I noticed that even if there were people who wanted to venerate the object, the iconoclast could destroy it and remain an exemplar of how to treat creation. Once destroyed, people cannot venerate the object. If people who want to venerate objects need not be considered, then I am certainly wrong about the OP. I was unaware of this. If no one wants to venerate the object, then the “iconoclast” is just destroying an object which no one holds especially sacred and that is more a vandal than an iconoclast. We all destroy things every day. We are not all iconoclasts.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
A different tack to try and break through various impasses.
In certain traditions, holiness is an attribute only of persons generally and God pre-eminently by virtue of their moral character.
In other traditions, holiness is an attribute, additionally, that can be predicated of things by virtue of their consecration.
In the first holiness is confined to personalist salvation terms. In latter holiness embraces the whole created order, including human, personal and moral.
I propose these distinctions in order to reveal how care for the environment (creation WITHIN salvation) is more likely to emerge within the more broadly defined materialist tradition of holiness.
The next step is to consider the evidence. Is it actually true. Some say "yeah", some say "nay." Maybe we should do some research rather than rely on anecdotals.
--------------------
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
Ley Druid,
You have interested me in furthering my study of formal logic so I looked up “modus tollens” and “modus ponens” in order to understand your last post. I had never heard of them.
With respect to modus tollens, I think you picked up that people were saying to you “Someone could suggest that X doesn't apply to them so they do not do Y.” Translating, “Someone could suggest that Protesantism does not involve anti-sacramentalism so it does not automatically follow that it denies the God-bearing character of creation” or “I hope this is not some attack on Protestants because in the first place, we are not anti-sacramental.” You were right in your last post when you said that it simply fails to disprove the original premise, but you were wrong when at one point you said that all of people's posts in this direction (denial of anti-sacramentalism in Protestantism) validate the premise.
With respect to modus ponens, that was an argument that you more or less dared other people to put forward, but as far as I can tell no one took you up on it. You offered to the other side that if they could show you that someone who intentionally desecrates sacramental objects is not an anti-sacramentalist you would be happy to then concede that the original premise should be rejected. I will concede that your logic was not flawed; but since no one took you up on it (and I certainly don’t intend to) I won’t discuss it further.
With respect to anti-environmental Russians, I would assert that it is logical to assume that sacramentalism is the opposite of anti-sacramentalism, and that sacramentalism should prevent disrespect for the environment. Father Gregory said, “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.” In effect, anti-sacramentalism leads to rapaciousness via disrespect for creation. Therefore, sacramentalism should prevent rapaciousness via respect for creation. It seems that you are comfortable with the notion that sacramentalists can be anti-environmental; that the sacraments (which we would assume affirm the God-bearing character of creation instead of deny it) do nothing to foster respect and stewardship for creation? I find this puzzling and a little disturbing, even as a non-Christian humanist.
In the end, I think I do understand. While Fr. Gregory might have been trying to make a broad statement, you are making a narrower one that is in sympathy with him. Your narrower and better defined position is “For Catholics, to reject the necessity or efficacy of those sacramental signs is to deny the God-bearing character of creation (the way he makes himself present in a finite figure).” Your parenthetical clause is crucial because the “God-bearing character of creation” is vague to non-Catholics. I didn't really know what it meant.
I can see how Catholics, holding this position, would worry that someone who does not fully embrace it might have a limited perspective on what God can do and is willing to do for Man. At the same time, having been raised Protestant, I can see a different (but not opposite) angle. That is, “For Protestants, to insist upon the necessity and efficacy of sacramental signs (the ability for priests to invoke God’s presence in a finite figure) is to risk a superstitious belief that priests may create idols, in which the power of God is held for human benefit.” Can you see this?
Thanks, Ley Druid.
Jim
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Ley Druid--
I missed posting on the Hell thread, and accept your apology.
--------------------
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
JimT,
You really impress me. You offer insightful analysis and useful suggestions. ![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
You have given me great faith in SOF.
I WAS silly to suggest that something that doesn't deny the premise validates it.
This thread has taught me the weakness of inductive arguments especially when not applied to oneself, but to the "other". I will stick to criticizing my own anti-environmentalism.
I truly do apologize for having attacked others. I don't apologize for being pig-headed and sticking with this thread. It's too easy to say every opinion is equally valid. Thanks again JimT for suggesting a way not to.
As to your concerns for superstition and idolatry I would like to say two things. 1. I agree that this concern is valid and does not invalidate the OP. 2. Just to give you a warm fuzzy feeling, I would like to suggest that the Pope himself would agree with you. In the document I quoted he suggests quote:
In recent decades some people, in reaction to an excessive sacramentalism, have put the primary, if not the exclusive, emphasis on the word.
He's suggesting that anti-sacramentalism is often a response to just the idolatrous superstitious sacramentalism that you are worried about.
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
![[Frown]](frown.gif) I won't be able to post for a week or so. I look forward to any comments in the meantime folks might have about holiness, things, persons and the divine. Tata for now. ![[Heart]](graemlins/heartpump.gif)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FatMac
Ship's Macintosh
# 2914
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
In certain traditions, holiness is an attribute only of persons generally and God pre-eminently by virtue of their moral character.
In other traditions, holiness is an attribute, additionally, that can be predicated of things by virtue of their consecration.
In the first holiness is confined to personalist salvation terms. In latter holiness embraces the whole created order, including human, personal and moral.
I propose these distinctions in order to reveal how care for the environment (creation WITHIN salvation) is more likely to emerge within the more broadly defined materialist tradition of holiness.
Even within the terms of your argument, I do not see how you can make the logical leap from "some things can be holy by virtue of their consecration" to "holiness embraces the whole created order" (emphasis mine in both cases). ISTM that the most your argument above can suggest is that sacramentalists are more likely to care for consecrated things, which is no doubt true but says very little about a more general care for the environment.
Furthermore I think that your argument is a straw man at least in terms of thoughtful Protestants. That is, personally I am quite happy to speak of things other than persons as 'holy', meaning set apart (for some godly purpose). In the case of persons, there is an added moral dimension in that we are set apart to righteousness (which is of course the particular godly purpose wrt agents).
--------------------
Do not beware the slippery slope - it is where faith resides.
Do not avoid the grey areas - they are where God works.
Posts: 1706 | From: Sydney | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
JimT
Ship'th Mythtic
# 142
|
Posted
Ley Druid, thanks a bunch, buddy. It's nice to have had a positive effect since I've been such a negative one in the past. It is gratifying to have had such a meaningful exchange of deeply-held beliefs and to have played a role in healing deep wounds. Stay cool brother. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posts: 2619 | From: Now On | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stowaway
Ship's scavenger
# 139
|
Posted
Interesting discussion.
It seems to me that the initial protestant rejection of sacramentalism had three roots.
1) Political - Sacramentalism reinforced the power of the church, because only priests of the church were able to consecrate the elements. It was in the interest of protestant leaders to make wholesale changes in the way people worshipped in order to wipe out the power of the priests.
2) Idolatry - The veneration of statues and relics was seen as idolatry and I think that it sometimes was and is.
3) Biblical authority - It is really impossible to find the sacramental theology of the Eucharist, for instance, in the Bible alone.
This resulted in the stripping away of mystery and ritual again and again. Finally, when the Quakers began, George Fox was teaching the same message. "You don't need a priest as mediator because Christ is the mediator". This, by the way is a tremendous strength of protestantism - the confidence to approach God directly.
Did that lead to denial of the God bearing character of creation? Yes, I think that it often did. In some ways the effect was more complex than that. The concentration on the Word of God had more of an effect in this respect. Concentration on words can lead to the denial of intuition, emotion and aesthetics. In some senses, the charismatic movement and the resurgence in Celtic spirituality have helped to reintegrate those aspects.
Along with the stripping away of ritual always came the reassertion of ritual. We are creatures that require ritual, so that even (or especially!)Pentecostals and Baptists have their own rituals. Even the quiet time act of opening up the Bible on the table is a personal ritual, and many protestants have special places for their quiet times.
In my church (a charismatic fellowship)we have been using silence, candles, anointing oil, banners, ambient music, art etc. We hold baptism services/barbecues/canoing on Loch Lomond. We see it more as "embodying" our worship, and the effect has been profound. However, our theology is more that of us building an appropriate earthly altar and God adding the divine fire to the altar.
There is a difference, I think, in the way that the rituals are believed to have been initiated. I think that traditional sacramentalist churches see their sacraments as ordained by God through the authority of church tradition. We are building rituals using intuition, seeking to be guided by God, by aesthetics, by theology and psychology. Maybe that is how the first rituals began. If so, the difference would be in our understanding of appropriateness. I do not believe that what we are doing now can be repeated in ten years time with the same effect.
--------------------
Warning: Mid-life crisis in progress
Posts: 610 | From: Back down North | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr. Gregory:
In certain traditions, holiness is an attribute only of persons generally and God pre-eminently by virtue of their moral character.
In other traditions, holiness is an attribute, additionally, that can be predicated of things by virtue of their consecration.
In the first holiness is confined to personalist salvation terms. In latter holiness embraces the whole created order, including human, personal and moral.
I propose these distinctions in order to reveal how care for the environment (creation WITHIN salvation) is more likely to emerge within the more broadly defined materialist tradition of holiness.
I take it the former traditions are the protestant ones. And I don't think it's an accurate description of what protestants think about holiness. In protestant thought, moral character is not what makes someone holy, and holiness is not an attribute only of God and people.
I was taught in Baptist Sunday School that originally everything was holy and good because God made everything, and that if/when things of this earth are not holy now it's because we have debased them through sin. We cannot make them holy again, no more than we can make ourselves holy again - but God can and does, and I have heard plenty of petitions asking God to do so. I'm pretty sure my Baptist parents would say that we may dedicate ourselves to God, and we may dedicate things to God and to the furthering of God's kingdom, but that consecration is up to God.
So I will say, again, Fr. Gregory, that I think you're imputing things to protestants that they simply do not believe.
Ley Druid: no need to apologize for worrying this thing like a dog with a bone. And I'll respond, honest - I hope within a day or two - but not now, it's nearly 1 am here.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ley Druid
Ship's chemist
# 3246
|
Posted
RuthW,
Take your time.
Stowaway made me think, suppose we had two OP's:
Holiness comes from the grace of God.
The Pope can consecrate something holy.
Do people think these would receive equal criticism? If not, why not?
PS Once you've thought about a good answer for these questions, then consider that the latter OP DOES NOT suggest that the Pope could do anything without the grace of God. Does that change your answer?
Posts: 1188 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I would like to explain my view of sacramentalism using a quote from a favourite book of mine. I agree with all of this, but I have neither the intellect nor spirituality to put it so well.
"Jesus has left us, but His resurrected body multiplies in blessing whenever bread is broken in His name. He is flesh of our flesh whenever we partake of the Eucharistic sacrament, because His body sanctifies every element of the created world when it is consecrated in His name. And so it is that the body which is now one with the Father in the unitary realm of eternity is also dissipated in the myriad atoms that compose the physical world and interpenetrate the psychic realm. His real presence is with mankind when we remember Him and call on His name in dedication and love. Evil and good, the darkness and the light, have now been raised from the separative world where judgement and condemnation reign, to take their place in His mystical body.
"Only when humanity has understood this truth and practised it in the world of separation and suffering will death be swallowed up and victory be won for we shall be changed. The perishable being will be clothed with the imperishable and what is mortal clothed with immortality."
(From "Smouldering Fire" by Martin Israel)
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stowaway
Ship's scavenger
# 139
|
Posted
PaulTH,
In many ways the way that you are describing God's presence in the world is similar to the way I would see his presence in the world through the Holy Spirit in his people.
The nearest analogy for me is found in anointing the sick with oil. When I have prayed for healing, I have sometimes used oil in the prayer. At first I found it difficult because I was seeing the oil as a symbol, and therefore the act was not "real". I suppose I could think that I can "sanctify" the oil so that it becomes objectively holy. Then the act would be effective because of the oil.
I see it differently. I wish to impart the grace of God/God himself to someone. How am I, a physical being to do a spiritual act. Answer: I am going to "embody" (incarnate) it by acting out a drama or parable. And yes, God does sometimes respond to this in a way that I can sense or that can be objectively measured (in results).
If you were to ask me whether the Holy Spirit is "specially present" in the oil, I would have no answer. I would not say yes or no. I would only say that I do not see it that way.
Regarding the Lord's supper, it is my understanding that the symbolism points to Jesus' death, rather than his physical body per se. However, we did an interesting service in the church in which we had a plate of bread rolls alone, without any wine. The rolls were associated back through Jesus to the temple showbread and the manna. Eating that bread brought home strongly Jesus' identity as the bread of life.
--------------------
Warning: Mid-life crisis in progress
Posts: 610 | From: Back down North | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ley Druid:
RuthW,
Take your time.
Stowaway made me think, suppose we had two OP's:
Holiness comes from the grace of God.
The Pope can consecrate something holy.
Do people think these would receive equal criticism? If not, why not?
PS Once you've thought about a good answer for these questions, then consider that the latter OP DOES NOT suggest that the Pope could do anything without the grace of God. Does that change your answer?
My assumption even before you said so was that the Pope could not consecrate anything without the grace of God. This coincides with my own view of the Eucharist. The priest isn't working magic up there; he (or she, in the ECUSA) is invoking the promises God has already made and kept.
I don't think, though, that my Baptist parents, Sunday School teachers, et al., would say the Pope can consecrate something any more than anyone else can, as of course they don't see ordination as a sacrament. (Please keep in mind that I do!) I think they'd say any of us can ask God to consecrate something (though we can keep something holy, i.e., observe the sabbath - respect a holiness conferred by God), and we'd know by the results, the fruits, whether or not something really is holy.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
