|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Sacraments and magic
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Where is this 'clergy-dependency' of which you speak?
Surely this is in the eye of the beholder to a certain extent?
- I am not clergy-dependent.
- That church over there has sacraments, therefore it must be clergy-dependent and the people aren't encouraged to think for themselves ...
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Again, I agree with you, Belle Ringer. I think clergy-dependency is one of the most pernicious things in Christianity - ISTM it goes against the fundamental tenor of the New Testament, that we can all know and experience God directly for ourselves, with our only mediator being Christ (who is God anyway!).
If I could, I think I'd ditch the whole concept of sacrament. How is it a helpful concept, can anyone help me understand?
Well, I find it helpful ...
I never used to, but I do now.
I don't see how having a 'sacramental' view of things in any way inhibits my ability to think for myself, 'hear from God' (if we are to use charismatic jargon) nor know or experience God directly for myself.
Why should it?
If we believe in the 'efficacy' of sacraments to whatever extent - whether as a 'means of grace' in the Reformed sense or the more 'developed' way that characterises the RC approach then these things mediate or 'channel' divine grace ...
If that is the case then we are receiving grace through the sacraments as well as by other means.
Which is great.
What's wrong with that?
Why does something have to be 'unmediated' or somehow direct in order to be meaningful or valid? Of course, if I were to meet you face to face for a conversation then that would be better than discussing things here online ... but as it is we are to enjoy (or otherwise ...) some interaction here through the medium of words on a screen.
In more 'Catholic' terms then the medium mediates the message as it were ... the 'medium IS the message' to a certain extent ... it embodies and conveys it.
Christ didn't just have a message, he IS the message itself - HE is the Good News ...
So, if sacraments mediate Christ to us in some way then surely that's a good thing and implies that they are good things to have around ...
I find sacraments helpful for a whole range of reasons ... for one thing they remind me that it isn't all about words on a page (good though Bible study and so on undoubtedly is) and that God's grace is available and mediated through people, places and things ...
We are no disembodied spirits floating around in the ether.
The demonstrate the Incarnation ... the Word became flesh ... what was unseen became seen, what was not physical became physical ...
They remind me of what is central about the Christian faith. That God became man in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Sure, I can grasp that intellectually but as a physical, flesh and blood, 3D person it helps to have memorials and symbols and things that transcend the sum of those individual parts and take on and even greater significance ...
Where the 'objectivity' comes in is that these things aren't dependent on my ability to conjure them up or attain a standard of piety that 'actualises' them ... no amount of my screwing my face up and going 'NNNNNNnnnngggg ...' can bring any of this about. It is all by grace. My part is to acknowledge and receive.
I could go on.
Does that help?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
If I could, I think I'd ditch the whole concept of sacrament. How is it a helpful concept, can anyone help me understand?
Do you think there is any category difference between Communion and those other ways of 'experiencing Christ directly' that you allude to?
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
What we have in the sacraments is a guarantee, within certain boundries, that the thing it signifies is also the reality. These are the things which makes the Church visible, the candle put where all can see it rather than one hidden in a bushel, so that we might know where to go in order to be saved. Is that dependence on the Church? Yes, because Christ founded the Church as the ark of salvation, the rest being washed away in the flood. But let's also be clear, it is Christ through the Holy Spirit who baptises, who confirms etc the Church and its ministers merely being the vehicle by which they are distributed to the faithful and handed down to the next generation intact.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
If I could, I think I'd ditch the whole concept of sacrament. How is it a helpful concept, can anyone help me understand?
Do you think there is any category difference between Communion and those other ways of 'experiencing Christ directly' that you allude to?
Personally, no I don't. Referring to Gamaliel's response, it's not that I think the sacraments themselves are unhelpful, rather it's the act of separating them into a special category.
Jesus and his first followers gave us many instructions, principles and examples to follow; I don't see how it is helpful to pick out 2, 7 or however many of those and put a special label on them.
And I think it's especially unhelpful to say that only a certain group of people are permitted / authorised / qualified to carry out these specially-labelled activities.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Forthview
Shipmate
# 12376
|
Posted
Each individual Christian has a unique relationship with God.However each individual Christian is also part of the family of God,which is the Church.
We come together as the family of God to be together as a family should be and to participate in family events.
The word 'sacramentum' was used in the West to translate the Greek word 'mysterion' Tertullian was the first to translate this word as 'sacramentum' which in everyday usage was the pledge made by a soldier on entering military service.The arm of the soldier was sometimes branded to show whom he would serve.Tertullian described baptism as a sacramentum through word and visible sign and the idea was taken up by theologians who described sacraments as 'visible words' composed of words and material elements.
Within the family of the Church certain members have particular responsibilities,but they are not APART from the rest of the family. Bishops,presbyters and deacons a A PART of the family.As far as the Catholic church is concerned baptism can be administered by anyone and marriage is administered by the bride and groom.
Other sacraments need the presence of the members of the family who have been commissioned by the family to do so - that is bishops,priests and deacons.
AS Christians we are NOT ALONE,but find our salvation within the family of the Church.
Although the Catholic and Orthodox church specify seven sacraments we can,if we wish, see many other things as sacraments - even a walk in the park but that is more on an individual level rather than that of the whole Church.
Posts: 3444 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can understand why you take the position you do, South Coast Kevin ... and at one time you'd have heard me argue along very similar lines.
I've changed my tune on this one over the years. That's not to say that I've learned my instrument any better than you, as it were ...
It strikes me that a high degree of sacramentalism and a high degree of what we might call 'charismaticism' can co-exist ... there are many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, or RC charismatics for instance ... although the figures fluctuate depending on the sources and criteria and so on.
I asked an RC priest about this back in the summer and he said that to all intents and purposes there was no difference whatsoever between the charismatic scene in the RCC and the charismatic movement anywhere else. They sing the same songs and probably use a lot of material you'd be familiar with.
When I asked him how the 'charismata' tended to manifest itself he said that this was similar to how these things 'work' within the CofE or other mainstream Protestant churches.
The only difference, as far as he was concerned, was that RCs might combine these with specifically Catholic devotional practices - so, someone might 'speak in tongues' when praying the Rosary, for instance, or when confronted by the Consecrated Host during Benediction or Exposition ...
He'd recently 'presided' over a Mass at an RC charismatic convention - he was the celebrant at one of the services. I asked him what he thought of it and he said that it was way too loud and as far as he was concerned it detracted from the dignity and solemnity of the occasion.
Whatever the case, if we take the presence of 'charismata' as an indication of the Spirit's particular presence and operation, then whatever the ins and outs of all this it demonstrates that it is possible to be both charismatic and sacramental in approach at one and the same time.
On the issue of whether it's good, bad or indifferent to have designated people 'presiding' at communion ... well, I can only say that it doesn't bother me in the least.
I speak as someone who used to be in a full-on charismatic church where communion was celebrated in all sorts of ways - sometimes as a 'help yourself' kind of free for all ... sometimes in a more 'conventional' way.
I have myself 'presided' as it were at communions in house-group settings and indeed in a 'whole church' setting in a Baptist church - where lay presidency was allowed.
That was fine - in that context.
But I don't feel in any way 'disenfranchised' or 'deprived' or miffed or whatever else if I go to a church where an ordained minister or priest is the only one authorised to preside at communion.
That's no skin off my nose.
Why should it be?
Do I go home smarting and thinking, 'Dang! I wish I was allowed to do that ...'
No, why should I?
It's not that I'm not 'special' enough or holy enough or whatever else - and I'm certainly neither of those things - but that doesn't really come into it. If I took my wife to a restaurant this weekend, would I go home thinking, 'Dang, they had a waiter to serve our meal, I was deprived of the opportunity to go and fetch it or cook it myself ... I feel cheated now ...'
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Lots of churches which only have priests or clergy presiding at communion have small group studies and all the rest of it ... heck, I've been to RC lectio-divina sessions and so on that are led by little old ladies with no clergy-persons present whatsoever.
It's one of these both/and not either/or things again.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Belle Ringer
Shipmate
# 13379
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
That which the formal churches do on Sunday morning instinctively communicates to me God is distant remote disinterested and boring. For me it's an anti-sacrament, so calling it a universal sacrament is deadly wrong. It works for some people but not for all.
just how much time have you spent in actually exploring these "boring anti-sacraments" as a way of spiritual life? It's one thing to say that you have tasted spinach, and so a few times prepared in different ways, and that you just don't particularly like it. It's quite another to say that you don't like spinach because it looks green and your mum and dad are trying to force it on you instead of yummy cookies.
Lots of time. Years and years of time. Bookshelves of time. Grew up Episcopalian. It turned me until an agnostic. The strong symbolism conveys the inherent message that God is distant and disinterested and values only clergy anyway. (Sometimes I suspect it was intentionally designed to convey that, by self-important clergy.)
Periodically I try it again, and within two years have lost all interest in God again because the formal eucharist ceremony instinctively conveys to me "God is distant and boring and utterly uninvolved."
I have no problem with some people finding the ceremony meaningful. But their historical demand that everyone pretend it's meaningful to them or die, shows a strong anti-God pro-political power element to the historical church.
Whatever the "historical church" ever said must be questioned, it's as likely wrong as right. Crusades, anyone? Locking nuns in a convent and telling them to stay there and burn to death instead of leaving? Why should I believe any "you should do this" from the church that invented these anti-God ideas?
What some obviously poor at reflecting God's values historical church says has nothing to do with determining what is real in God's eyes.
Posts: 5830 | From: Texas | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Since when have the Episcopalians advocated locking nuns in convents and having them burn to death instead of leaving if the building is on fire ...
I can understand aspects of Episcopalianism - or Anglicanism as we'd call it - leading to agnosticism ... but the same could be said for various forms of fundamentalism.
Former fundamentalists make very good atheists, I've found.
I can understand why Episcopalianism or various forms of 'historic' church might not appeal to you but there are equal and opposite dangers among some of the newer and trendier groups too from what I've seen.
The same sun that melts the wax hardens the clay and so on ...
The use of liturgy and so on needn't be 'cold' and 'distant' necessarily ... although I'd be the first to accept that it often is in some quarters.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
For me, the Eucharist is surely one of the most intimate of acts....
--------------------
"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
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Locking nuns in a convent and telling them to stay there and burn to death instead of leaving?
Can you please share with us where you learned of this story? I haven't heard this one before and I'm sorry but it sounds like something that came straight out of a Chick tract.
quote:
Why should I believe any "you should do this" from the church that invented these anti-God ideas?
Because it's from this church that you most likely got many of your ideas about God in the first place by way of your Episcopalian upbringing and most likely many of the ideas about God and faith that you hold on to now. What is the basis for your picking and choosing? If it's feelings then feelings can be deceptive (as can physical senses: is that an oasis up ahead or a mirage?).
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Grew up Episcopalian. It turned me until an agnostic. The strong symbolism conveys the inherent message that God is distant and disinterested and values only clergy anyway. (Sometimes I suspect it was intentionally designed to convey that, by self-important clergy.) Periodically I try it again, and within two years have lost all interest in God again because the formal eucharist ceremony instinctively conveys to me "God is distant and boring and utterly uninvolved."
So what sort of celebration makes God "close, exciting and involved" for you? Perhaps you have some video you can point to?
I should note that I think there are significant problems with the liturgy that was invented in the 60s of the previous century, which spread beyond the confines of the RCC (and quite likely significantly shaped what you are seeing in the Episcopalian church today). For example, this little cartoon points to one of the problems that you may have encountered. Or a bit more extensive, see for example here.
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
I have no problem with some people finding the ceremony meaningful. But their historical demand that everyone pretend it's meaningful to them or die, shows a strong anti-God pro-political power element to the historical church.
That is a mightily abbreviated and biased summary of history there. In the English Reformation, plenty of Catholics were executed for their beliefs. The Calvinists (and John Calvin himself) had no qualms hanging Catholics at Gorkum for their beliefs, or for that matter burning at the stake the non-Catholic but "heretic" Michael Servetus. The Lutherans mostly banished Catholics and plundered their churches and monasteries, and held up their side of the worst religious war Europe has ever seen. But better not be an Anabaptist in their realm. The Zwinglians also liked to kill those pesky Anabaptists. If you want to read a choice collection of quotes from the Protestant reformers on "religious freedom", you can do so here. Not that I have any doubt that the RCC has more to answer for, and indeed the bigger "body count". But then the RCC was in religious power, and perhaps more importantly entwined with political power, for much longer than the Protestant upstarts. The Protestants however didn't start out with modern sensibilities concerning religious freedom either. We are all wiser now, and to a large extent because few covered themselves in glory in the 16th and 17th century.
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Whatever the "historical church" ever said must be questioned, it's as likely wrong as right. Crusades, anyone? Locking nuns in a convent and telling them to stay there and burn to death instead of leaving? Why should I believe any "you should do this" from the church that invented these anti-God ideas?
The crusades were defensive wars against Muslim aggression, which had subjugated two-thirds of Christendom when the first one started. Without the crusades, you may well not be a Christian. Read for example this for some perspective. And I don't even know what the heck you are talking about with locking nuns into a convent to have them burn. When I google for that, I get the story of a Protestant atrocity, the burning of the Ursuline convent at Charlestown. At any rate, it certainly is not policy of the Church to have nuns get burned against their will. If we could perhaps avoid Chick tract polemics in the following?
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
What some obviously poor at reflecting God's values historical church says has nothing to do with determining what is real in God's eyes.
The RCC had two millennia and a global reach for getting things wrong. The Protestants have been at it only for half a millennium or so, and started much more localised, but best I can tell are trying their level best to demonstrate that the Church is still composed of both sinners and saints.
This is however perhaps a difference: the RCC has never claimed that her authority derives from the holiness of her ministers. A Borgia pope is hence not embarrassing in quite the same way as a Swaggart preacher.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Belle Ringer: quote:
Depends on what you mean by redefine. Isn't it the church/clergy-centered people who did the redefining <of the word sacrament>?
I don't know the historical etymology of the word sacrament. Was the word coined by lay Christians independent of church involvement, and then later on the church/clergy-centered people laid claim to it for their own defined usage?
The very concept of "lay Christians independent of church involvement" as anything but lapsed Christians is modern, quite possibly post-modern. Your question is like asking whether chanting was invented by rap musicians, and then later corrupted by the "Gregorians". No, just no. Brain hurts.
I made IngoB's brain hurt? Whoa!
My question was primarily ironic, as I think you could guess. Whatever the history of the word, I sincerely doubt it was appropriated in that direction.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
This thread has been reminding me of The Lord of the Rings and Galadriel's words to Sam before he looks into the Mirror:
quote:
'And you?' she said, turning to Sam.'For this is what your folk would call magic, I believe; though I do not understand clearly what they mean; and they seem to use the same word of the deceits of the Enemy. But this, if you will, is the magic of Galadriel. Did you not say that you wished to see Elf-magic?'
"I did,' said Sam, trembling a little between fear and curiosity....
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Heh heh ...
I certainly didn't want to start a traditionalists vs modernists war still less a Protestants vs Catholics one here. As IngoB says, neither side particularly covered themselves with glory in the religious controversies of the 16th and 17th centuries.
But we have got onto another issue that might be worth exploring ... and that's the role of experience in 'discerning' or determining what 'works' or not ...
I don't doubt that people have experiences. Some of them possibly even extraordinary at times ... there are stories of levitating RC Saints for goodness sake ...
However, I am wary of the use of experiences to somehow 'verify' claims of the validity or otherwise of religious expression or practice.
All that glisters is not gold and all that ... and as Pancho has said, there can be mirages out there in the desert ...
Sure, 'an ounce of experience is better than a ton of theory' and so on, but I'm wary of practices that seek to 'produce' particular experiences and effects.
Of course, one could level this kind of charge just as much at the 'ad orientem' postures and traditional settings that IngoB favours as one could at a Pentecostal meeting, say ...
My own view is that there is nothing wrong with either 'spectacle' nor informality - in and of themselves - providing they don't become manipulative in some way ... but that raises the issue of where we draw the line ...
Our respective mileages will probably vary on that.
It's always struck me as odd that some of those who complain most about 'hocus-pocus' and stage-craft and so on in traditional or high-churchy worship often go in for quite manipulative or 'high-octane' methods themselves - only in a different way.
Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't tar everyone who emphasises experiences or can talk about particular experiences they've had with the same brush. Far from it. Not all charismatics are charismaniacs just as not all sacramentalists and ritualist types are cold and spikey.
Those of us who've knocked around in charismatic-land have undoubtedly seen examples of manipulative practices and auto-suggestion. The Wimber teams, I'm afraid, used to go in for that a lot ... 'Some of you may be feeling X ... or Y ... or Z ...' etc ... feeling their way with cues and prompts until they got a response.
Conversely, those of us who've been involved with that sort of thing have probably also seen things that didn't quite fit that particular mould - things that didn't appear to be the result of auto-suggestion or the creation of a particular atmosphere ...
I've seen both.
I found that I could 'set-up' a series of anticipated response too by setting out my stall in a particular way as it were. I'm wondering whether that strays into the 'magic' territory ... creating a set of expectations that are then somehow fulfilled in what appears to be a preternatural way ...
Be that as it may ... other than 'gut-feel', what are we to go on when it comes to the more 'experiential' side of things. Obviously there's scripture ... but that doesn't exist or function in a vacuum ... then there's common-sense, tradition, a whole range of checks and balances we pick up naturally as we go through life and learn how to interact with other people ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
k-mann
Shipmate
# 8490
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
Yes - the only caveat I have with that is that when something becomes routine, we switch off, and to make the best use of any ritual it should really be as if it were a new experience every time, or at least something special and rare rather than commonplace and easy to get to.
I must say that this is not my experience at all. In a birthday party, for instance, most people aren't sad that they are given the same cake as in all the other birthday parties, but they often will react negatively if they were to be 'surprised' by a poached salmon and a 'birthday flan.'
It seems to me that ritual doesn't need 'surprises.' In fact, if I went home for Christmas and was 'surprised' by something other than what I have been served every Christmas Eve for the last 30 or so years, I wouldn't like it.
quote:
Originally posted by itsarumdo:
There was a time when there was no church - only a bunch of friends of nominally jewish persuasion wondering what to do, and following instructions they had been left. It strikes me that they would probably not have been quite so heavy on ritual.
Yet, it is practically impossible to find any trace of these in writing or in archeological digs. I find it interesting that many people keep talking about those 'house churches,' but are curiously silent on the fact that archeology shows us that these were houses that were formally adapted for worship.
It wasn't just a living room where people sat around reading the Bible, eating crisps and drinking coffee.
--------------------
"Being religious means asking passionately the question of the meaning of our existence and being willing to receive answers, even if the answers hurt."
— Paul Tillich
Katolikken
Posts: 1314 | From: Norway | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
For me, a key difference between sacraments and magic - one that I have discussed with both clergy and practising magic-users - is this:
When we celebrate a sacrament, the physical sign we perform is the whole physical element of the sacrament. When we are baptised we are literally washed, when we receive Holy Communion we are literally fed, and when we marry, we physically join hands and make promises with immediate application to the physical world. The invisible grace that we signify by these acts exists whether we perform them or not (although if we never perform them, it may not apply to us in the specific way intended) - the overt action represents and communicates the presence of the covert power of God. But the act is exactly what we say it is.
When a magic-user attempts magic, there's often - not always, but often - an expectation that there will be a later physical consequence that is not brought about by the ritual in any obvious way. If someone performs a ritual to acquire money, they don't ask another person there for a tenner, they make some sacrifice, ritual action, incantation or what-have-you. And then they suppose that because they did the ritual, they will acquire actual money they wouldn't otherwise have at some later - but not too much later - point.
A sacrament offers a direct material metaphor for the unseen grace it represents. A magical ritual offers an arcane performative act in order to change the future of the physical world.
I see them as very distinct concepts.
My partner, who is a pagan, disagrees to a significant extent.
t
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zoey
Broken idealist
# 11152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
My partner, who is a pagan, disagrees to a significant extent.
t
In what way(s)?
--------------------
Pay no mind, I'm doing fine, I'm breathing on my own.
Posts: 3095 | From: the penultimate stop? | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zoey:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
My partner, who is a pagan, disagrees to a significant extent.
In what way(s)?
My partner tends to argue that a lot of the theology of sacraments, as of other things, is ex post facto reasoning to put clear blue water between Christians and everyone else, and that a ritual is a ritual, when you get down to it.
I can't really express it in more detail than that.
t
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Within the family of the Church certain members have particular responsibilities,but they are not APART from the rest of the family. Bishops,presbyters and deacons a A PART of the family.
Yeah, I understand that these people with the particular responsibilities are part of the church family but, still, they are permitted to do certain things that (in normal circumstances) others are not. For me, this is unnecessary and divisive.
quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
Although the Catholic and Orthodox church specify seven sacraments we can,if we wish, see many other things as sacraments - even a walk in the park but that is more on an individual level rather than that of the whole Church.
Well, maybe - but isn't the point that it's those specific seven things (just two for some Christians) which are seen as sacraments, i.e. as special in some way. I don't get the point of the specialness; why are those 7 or 2 activities singled out as special and distinct from all the other things that Jesus and the early Christians told us to do?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Well, maybe - but isn't the point that it's those specific seven things (just two for some Christians) which are seen as sacraments, i.e. as special in some way. I don't get the point of the specialness; why are those 7 or 2 activities singled out as special and distinct from all the other things that Jesus and the early Christians told us to do?
Because these are signs Christ have given to his Church so that we don't have to doubt or fumble in the dark. They come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality.
[ 20. January 2015, 07:25: Message edited by: Ad Orientem ]
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Well, maybe - but isn't the point that it's those specific seven things (just two for some Christians) which are seen as sacraments, i.e. as special in some way. I don't get the point of the specialness; why are those 7 or 2 activities singled out as special and distinct from all the other things that Jesus and the early Christians told us to do?
Because these are signs Christ have given to his Church so that we don't have to doubt or fumble in the dark. They come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality.
The guarantee aspect of sacraments always bothers me. In the same way that biblical fundamentalists like to assert the infallibility of scripture, so some sacramentalists assert the certainty of grace or blessing or whatever of their sacraments.
And if you question them, it often seems to rest on biblical fundamentalism, that Jesus, according to the bible, said this. Though for some it rests on an ecclesiastical fundamentalism, that the church has said this, therefore it must be true.
I don't share these beliefs. I don't think certainty can be guaranteed in that way, I think the desire for certainty should be viewed with suspicion, and I think there is an improper approach to God at work - God is free, and no one is a guaranteed broker for God; the very idea of it.
Apart from that ..
So I'd like to hear more about the belief in guarantee. One person I spoke to had the sense that if you can't be sure then it's all a house of cards, so you open wide and swallow The Church and only practise sceptical thought after that. Is that a common view?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Because these are signs Christ have given to his Church so that we don't have to doubt or fumble in the dark. They come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality.
This is a bold claim and, like hatless, I'd like to see some of the reasoning and evidence behind it. On what basis do you believe that these things (and only these things) are signs given by Christ that come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
@hatless
For me, the certainty rests in who God is. Roughly:
God, through Christ and through the Church, has said it will be so. Because we know God to be faithful and trustworthy, then we can know with certainty that it will be so.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
@hatless
For me, the certainty rests in who God is. Roughly:
God, through Christ and through the Church, has said it will be so. Because we know God to be faithful and trustworthy, then we can know with certainty that it will be so.
God has said it will be so? I don't think God speaks so unambiguously. You can find a text or two, but there are plenty of texts saying 'I hate, I despise your pilgrim feasts and your burnt offerings.' God's nature is to do a new thing, to surprise. Will God honour the rote and perfunctory?
If God is faithful and trustworthy, then God will honour the Baptist congregation with their Ribena and diced white, or the youth group that happens to have found some fruit cake and Coke. Maybe. Who knows? I think part of our faithfulness is to stay on our toes, watching for the new thing that God is giving or asking.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Will God honour the rote and perfunctory?
God will honour His promises.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
@hatless
For me, the certainty rests in who God is. Roughly:
God, through Christ and through the Church, has said it will be so. Because we know God to be faithful and trustworthy, then we can know with certainty that it will be so.
God has said it will be so? I don't think God speaks so unambiguously. You can find a text or two, but there are plenty of texts saying 'I hate, I despise your pilgrim feasts and your burnt offerings.' God's nature is to do a new thing, to surprise. Will God honour the rote and perfunctory?
If God is faithful and trustworthy, then God will honour the Baptist congregation with their Ribena and diced white, or the youth group that happens to have found some fruit cake and Coke. Maybe. Who knows? I think part of our faithfulness is to stay on our toes, watching for the new thing that God is giving or asking.
But it's not just about Scripture. God did not stop communicating when the canon closed. God has been speaking through the Church - and for c. 1500 years, there was a fairly clear message throughout the Church (even given the differences between East and West).
The Baptists and the youth group are not within this tradition. Others may disagree, but I would suggest these might 'work' but we don't know. Whereas within the Tradition we do.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
...for c. 1500 years, there was a fairly clear message throughout the Church (even given the differences between East and West).
Apart from on those differences between East and West and, of course, ignoring all those groups through history who dissented from the 'offical' church position...
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
So, TomM, you wouldn't hang your certainty on one sure fire bit of evidence, but on your reading of a long period of belief?
That it's always been believed is proof, I would argue.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Because these are signs Christ have given to his Church so that we don't have to doubt or fumble in the dark. They come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality.
This is a bold claim and, like hatless, I'd like to see some of the reasoning and evidence behind it. On what basis do you believe that these things (and only these things) are signs given by Christ that come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality?
Because this is what Christ has promised his Church. Of course, when we get into who and what the Church is then that gets a little dirtier (or rather that depends upon one's ecclesiology). I would point especially to the Gospel according to St. John and in particular to his discourse after the Last Supper. And that this has always been believed is evidence as well.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
@hatless
For me, the certainty rests in who God is. Roughly:
God, through Christ and through the Church, has said it will be so. Because we know God to be faithful and trustworthy, then we can know with certainty that it will be so.
God has said it will be so? I don't think God speaks so unambiguously. You can find a text or two, but there are plenty of texts saying 'I hate, I despise your pilgrim feasts and your burnt offerings.' God's nature is to do a new thing, to surprise. Will God honour the rote and perfunctory?
If God is faithful and trustworthy, then God will honour the Baptist congregation with their Ribena and diced white, or the youth group that happens to have found some fruit cake and Coke. Maybe. Who knows? I think part of our faithfulness is to stay on our toes, watching for the new thing that God is giving or asking.
But it's not just about Scripture. God did not stop communicating when the canon closed. God has been speaking through the Church - and for c. 1500 years, there was a fairly clear message throughout the Church (even given the differences between East and West).
The Baptists and the youth group are not within this tradition. Others may disagree, but I would suggest these might 'work' but we don't know. Whereas within the Tradition we do.
No we don't.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
So, TomM, you wouldn't hang your certainty on one sure fire bit of evidence, but on your reading of a long period of belief?
That it's always been believed is proof, I would argue.
I think your standard of 'proof' may be lower than many people's, then.
t
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
My partner tends to argue that a lot of the theology of sacraments, as of other things, is ex post facto reasoning to put clear blue water between Christians and everyone else, and that a ritual is a ritual, when you get down to it.
I can't really express it in more detail than that.
t
I think your partner is right to a large extent. Christian ritual can be studied and described using the same anthropological and sociological tools that you might use for any ritual.
However, the sacrament is not the ritual, just as the wash is not the water, the marriage is not the ring, and the meal is not the menu.
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Because these are signs Christ have given to his Church so that we don't have to doubt or fumble in the dark. They come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality.
This is a bold claim and, like hatless, I'd like to see some of the reasoning and evidence behind it. On what basis do you believe that these things (and only these things) are signs given by Christ that come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality?
Cos He said so?
--------------------
"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
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
So, TomM, you wouldn't hang your certainty on one sure fire bit of evidence, but on your reading of a long period of belief?
That it's always been believed is proof, I would argue.
I think your standard of 'proof' may be lower than many people's, then.
t
It's one of those essential proofs. If it's new then it ain't apostolic.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Because these are signs Christ have given to his Church so that we don't have to doubt or fumble in the dark. They come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality.
This is a bold claim and, like hatless, I'd like to see some of the reasoning and evidence behind it. On what basis do you believe that these things (and only these things) are signs given by Christ that come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality?
Cos He said so?
That depends on believing in the certainty of scripture, and interpreting a given line or two as a promise made to us.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Because these are signs Christ have given to his Church so that we don't have to doubt or fumble in the dark. They come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality.
This is a bold claim and, like hatless, I'd like to see some of the reasoning and evidence behind it. On what basis do you believe that these things (and only these things) are signs given by Christ that come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality?
Cos He said so?
That depends on believing in the certainty of scripture, and interpreting a given line or two as a promise made to us.
So I guess "love thy neighbour as thyself" can quite legitimately be interpreted non literally as well.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
There is always interpretation going on. Who is 'love your neighbour' addressed to?
I'm not trying to be like the lawyer who asked 'who is my neighbour?' I'm just saying that I don't see how you can base certainty, the guarantee, on a verse of scripture.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
That depends on believing in the certainty of scripture, and interpreting a given line or two as a promise made to us.
Rather, it depends on the authoritativeness of the teaching of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. I believe in that authority above and beyond scripture, because I do not believe that the Divine inspiration of this Church ended with writing / compiling and authorising this first teaching document.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Because these are signs Christ have given to his Church so that we don't have to doubt or fumble in the dark. They come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality.
This is a bold claim and, like hatless, I'd like to see some of the reasoning and evidence behind it. On what basis do you believe that these things (and only these things) are signs given by Christ that come with a guarantee that what they signify is also the reality?
Cos He said so?
That depends on believing in the certainty of scripture, and interpreting a given line or two as a promise made to us.
It's a tad more than 'just a line or two', though, isn't it? Words, 'red letter' words at those, and actions, repeated in all three Synoptic Gospels...
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The thing is, though, whether we take a 'high' view of the sacraments or a 'low' view of them or stand at various points in between ... and I'd say there's a pretty broad spectrum and range ... it's always going to be a 'faith position' ... we can't quantifiably 'prove' any of this.
We can't conclusively 'prove' the existence of God. We're taking about things here that we can't subject to scientific analysis.
If we believe that the Eucharist somehow mediates the Real Presence or acts in a way that goes beyond 'mere' symbolism (whatever that means in practice) so that the consecrated elements 'become' the Body and Blood of Christ, then we can't demonstrate that 'scientifically' ... ie. subject the molecules to chemical analysis to see if the 'substance' has changed.
I'm not sure if 'church fundamentalism' takes us any further than 'biblical fundamentalism' does - and the two things represent mirror-images of each other to a certain extent.
I find full-on RC fundamentalists (and there are some around) and full-on Orthodox zealots (their name for fundies) just as hard to take as full-on 6 Day Creationist or Dispensationalist Protestants ...
I would flee both extremes.
That said, for whatever reason, I do find myself inclining towards a view of the 'objectivity' of sacraments and their 'veracity' if you like, more so than I feel inclined these days to accept someone's claim that they had this, that or the other dream, vision or prophecy and so on ...
I find it strange that many charismatics, for instance, are quite prepared to accept that some jejune utterance or other from a member of their congregations as somehow a 'word from God' yet come over all squeamish if RCs, Orthodox or Anglo-Catholics (or High Lutherans too, perhaps?) claim that we can be certain that grace is somehow conferred or conveyed through sacraments ...
Am I the only one who finds this odd?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
At the same time, I find it strange - and rather disconcerting - when sacramentalists in certain traditions pontificate about the validity or otherwise of those practiced elsewhere ...
I can understand people being certain about the veracity or validity of their own, but not about the veracity of validity of anyone else's.
I s'pose though, that all traditions have some kind of yardstick ...
For the Reformed it's, 'where the word of God is faithfully preached and the sacraments duly administered' - or words to that effect.
Which, of course, begs further questions as to what constitutes the faithful preaching of scripture and how we are to recognise when sacraments are duly administered or not?
But then, similar value judgements then come into play even in non-sacramental settings. How do Quakers assess what's said in their Meetings, for instance? What criteria do they use? How do they know when a contribution is good, bad or indifferent?
The same applies, of course, with charismatics ... or with evangelicals when it comes to the preaching of scripture. It all tends to accord with some commonly agreed criteria - whether that is widely held or whether it is particular to the particular group in question ... ie. whether it fits with their 'mores' and values, traditions (and we all have them) and expectations.
I could give plenty of examples of this sort of thing, but will hold off at the risk of setting things on tangents.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I'm just saying that I don't see how you can base certainty, the guarantee, on a verse of scripture.
Not by itself, no. Sola scriptura, or the idea that scripture interprets scripture, is a relatively modern error anyway. You need to look to the continuous practice and faith of the Church to see how the scriptures are properly understood.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I'm just saying that I don't see how you can base certainty, the guarantee, on a verse of scripture.
Not by itself, no. Sola scriptura, or the idea that scripture interprets scripture, is a relatively modern error anyway. You need to look to the continuous practice and faith of the Church to see how the scriptures are properly understood.
But why would anyone believe in the church? It's fractured, disputatious and inconsistent.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I'm just saying that I don't see how you can base certainty, the guarantee, on a verse of scripture.
Not by itself, no. Sola scriptura, or the idea that scripture interprets scripture, is a relatively modern error anyway. You need to look to the continuous practice and faith of the Church to see how the scriptures are properly understood.
But why would anyone believe in the church? It's fractured, disputatious and inconsistent.
That rather depends upon your ecclesiology, don't it. I mean, do I really need to say it?
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I'm just saying that I don't see how you can base certainty, the guarantee, on a verse of scripture.
Not by itself, no. Sola scriptura, or the idea that scripture interprets scripture, is a relatively modern error anyway. You need to look to the continuous practice and faith of the Church to see how the scriptures are properly understood.
But why would anyone believe in the church? It's fractured, disputatious and inconsistent.
As it always has been, because it is a human institution. But where else might you go for authority and verification?
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Well, anyone can say that by church they just mean their little bit of it, but that is unpersuasive to an honest outsider. Why should someone think this or that church is infallible?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
I don't think it is, not for one moment ... but the collective wisdom of the saints over time might just be a little bit less fallible than the wisdom of one individual.
But not necessarily, or always ...!
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
So since my previous post it seems a view has emerged - there are 2 / 7 / some other number of sacraments (meaning special rituals or activities through which God is sure to bless / save / restore us) because my particular bit of the church says so. Is that all the argument the pro-sacrament side has?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I'm trying to understand why the language of guarantee or certainty is used. It's justified by the church someone has chosen, but there is no external authority anyone can point to. It looks as if people are certain because they have chosen their church. Yet guarantee seems to claim something much more than personal choice.
Why isn't a more modest 'this is what we believe' sufficient?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
