|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Sacraments and magic
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok ...
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
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?
But what arguments do the 'non-sacramental' side have?
Because I say so?
Because I don't believe in the sacraments?
Because my interpretation of the Bible says so?
We can use this argument both ways.
How do any of us 'know' anything when it comes to matters of faith?
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
How do any of us 'know' anything when it comes to matters of faith?
Which I think is where the question of how can anyone say something is "certain" comes from.
Of course, from the non-sacramental side we could say there are two ordinances that the Gospels record Christ telling us to do - to baptise and to share bread and wine. We don't know if they do anything, they may well do something, but we do them because Christ instructed us to.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But what arguments do the 'non-sacramental' side have?
This side doesn't need an argument. It's the sacramentalist side who are trying to demonstrate something, namely that certain rituals / activities should be considered categorically different from any other rituals / activities we might do. It's like the Russell's Teapot argument - it's the positive that needs to be proven, not the negative.
EDIT - link fail; Wikipedia links with punctuation in them don't seem to work...
[ 20. January 2015, 17:33: Message edited by: South Coast Kevin ]
--------------------
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
Didn't he tell us to carry a stick and a satchel? Or maybe not to? Or did he have some others in mind?
[ 20. January 2015, 17:35: Message edited by: hatless ]
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
But what arguments do the 'non-sacramental' side have?
This side doesn't need an argument. It's the sacramentalist side who are trying to demonstrate something, namely that certain rituals / activities should be considered categorically different from any other rituals / activities we might do. It's like the Russell's Teapot argument - it's the positive that needs to be proven, not the negative.
EDIT - link fail; Wikipedia links with punctuation in them don't seem to work...
Demonstrate how exactly? What is your proposed method of determining it? I would argue that there is a method by which we can determine these things but it's probably not the one you're thinking of, you know, the continuous faith of the Church, the lives of the saints etc. In other words, look to the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church for the the evidence, the Church being the pillar and ground of the truth, to wuote the Apostle.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Churches that teach people to accept whatever they are told by their "betters" and not ask any questions are endangering their people: That's the kind of teaching that leads people to believe they are suppose to have sex with a priest as a "sacrament" if he says so.
Churches with priesthoods and sacraments define both of those terms exhaustively. Any Catholic (for example) ordered by his priest to have sex with him as a sacrament ought to know that there are seven sacraments, none of which is priest-sexing.
I think you have the reception of grace confused with an overwhelming emotional experience. Which isn't to say it can't be an emotional experience, only that it's dangerous to think it's *supposed* to be that.
To IngoB's excellent explanation I'll add the following : A magician compels entities to do his bidding, or controls forces to bring about the result he desires. A priest petitions God to act according to his promises. The magician is confident of his result because of his personal power; the priest is confident of his result because he trusts God to keep his promises.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Is that all the argument the pro-sacrament side has?
You believe that you can validly interpret scripture over and against the very Church that wrote/compiled, transmitted and authorised your scripture for her faithful. You believe that you can freely make up your own mind over and against the Apostles, Church Fathers, Councils, Doctors of the Church and what have you. You do not respect the governing power of the hierarchy, and think a good shepherd follows his sheep. You ultimately accept no authority between yourself and God, it's just your inspiration in prayer or scripture study or whatever religious activity that determines what you think.
You are, essentially, a religious solipsist.
Solipsism cannot be defeated by argument. All argument requires some purchase, and since nothing will wrest that stamp of approval out of your own hand, there is none. At best one can try to trick you, to make you commit to something, and then show that it commits you to something else you dislike. But in face of such sophistry, all you need to do is to retract whatever is required. And who or what is going to stop you, since you are judge and jury of your own faith?
If you really want Catholic arguments, go read the Catholic Encyclopedia on Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance and Reconciliation, Annointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. Or read the current Catechism on Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance and Reconciliation, Annointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. Or read the Catechism of Trent on Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance and Reconciliation, Annointing of the Sick, Holy Orders, and Matrimony. Or read St Thomas Aquinas on Baptism (2, 3, 4), Confirmation, Eucharist (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11), Penance and Reconciliation (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23), Annointing of the Sick (2, 3, 4, 5), Holy Orders (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7), and Matrimony (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28). Or just bloody google. Arguments for days...
But nobody ever argues with solipsists. It's pointless. It's hopeless. One just shrugs, and leaves them to their splendid isolation. So if you insist on being your own master, then enjoy your faith, whatever you decide it will be today.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
This side doesn't need an argument. It's the sacramentalist side who are trying to demonstrate something, namely that certain rituals / activities should be considered categorically different from any other rituals / activities we might do.
The problem is that sacramental thinking is at the end of a trajectory, and if you don't follow along that trajectory it can appear as if someone is pulling rank on you making you do the equivalent of thinking 10 impossible things before breakfast.
For myself - I personally think that there is valid 'sola scriptura' and 'purely protestant' justification for sacramental thinking.
Yes, there are many things that we are commanded to do [more later], but both Communion and Baptism are two things that are unique in that they both include some kind of external sign and to which there is both the promise of a blessing and - conversely - a judgement attached (obliquely in the case of baptism, and much more obviously in the case of Communion.
I'd also contest the idea that the main point of either of these things is what we do. Rather, because of the promises attached to them, these things should be seen as a form of 'speech act' by God. This is why Luther's answer to how he could know he was saved by Christ was 'I am a baptised man'.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
Right, chris; and I think it's worth pointing out that "sola scriptura" means not that we believe nothing that isn't in the Bible, but that we can be required to believe only what can be proved from the Bible.
In particular I find SCK's use of Scripture puzzling; it essentially seems to treat the Bible as a magical artifact which dropped on our doorsteps without any mediation whatsoever, and which authenticates itself. The Church selected, preserved, and transmitted those books; if the Church can be trusted to have done so properly, then the Church's use of it before AD 1910 shouldn't be discounted. Neither should the liturgical practice of that Church be handwaved, as some seem to want to do, since that is the very same milieu in which all those selectors, preservers, and transmitters believed and worked.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
What an unappealing appeal to 'authority'.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
There are appeals to authority all over this thread. From the standpoint of logical argument, personal experience, Biblical text, and ecclesiastical tradition are equally unconvincing.
It seems to me that the disagreement is not so much about whether there is an authority to which we can appeal as where that authority is located and how it is constituted.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I think that's right. Otherwise it all boils down to personal, subjective experience and we might as well believe in the Cookie Monster or the Purple Headed Flying Bunny from the Planet Zarg.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Or working it out for ourselves in the Heraclitan stream. To paraphrase St. Brian of the Life.
What a bunch of old guys / giants on whose shoulders I'm not fit to sit decided, apart from an obvious canon, says more about their culture than anything else.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
It's God's authority, and only God's authority, that counts.
Some imply that God's authority is confined to the Bible, some that it's confined to those priested in the Church past and present, some that it's given to everyone through the Holy Spirit. All are true, but all have their limitations, while God is unlimited.
We muddle through, the best we can, and try to understand the snippets we're given. Collectively, they make up the Bible and the Church, but they remain limited. I think that an open mind and heart toward God, and toward each other as brothers and sisters as we approach the week of prayer for unity, is the only way forward.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
And in what medium is God reliably authoritative?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
In Christ, Martin. In the Holy Spirit. Not in us. Churches have measures that try to discern God's authority to the point of infallibility, wisely, but human failings and limitations continue to humble us, rightly.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
Demonstrate how exactly? What is your proposed method of determining it?
I suppose I was hoping for some appeal to the Bible, primarily. That's common ground we share, whereas appealing to the witness of your particular branch of the worldwide church isn't going to cut it, because I don't accept its witness in the same way as you do.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
But nobody ever argues with solipsists. It's pointless. It's hopeless. One just shrugs, and leaves them to their splendid isolation. So if you insist on being your own master, then enjoy your faith, whatever you decide it will be today.
Thanks for the links. I'll have a browse over the next day or two. No thanks to you, however, for the implication of bad faith on my part.
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The problem is that sacramental thinking is at the end of a trajectory, and if you don't follow along that trajectory it can appear as if someone is pulling rank on you making you do the equivalent of thinking 10 impossible things before breakfast.
Thanks for this, and for your whole post, chris stiles. I see your point that communion and baptism are rituals, in which the point lies behind the activity. Even so, I'm not convinced by the need to give them (and the other five, if you like) a special label, with the inevitable implication that (a) God meets with us in a special way through these activities, and (b) the action of a special person (the priest) is, at least in normal circumstances, needed to mediate this special meeting with God.
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
In particular I find SCK's use of Scripture puzzling; it essentially seems to treat the Bible as a magical artifact which dropped on our doorsteps without any mediation whatsoever, and which authenticates itself.
I'm trying to walk the line between respecting the Christian witness of the last 2,000 years, and returning to the Bible and the nature of God revealed therein through Jesus.
You and others talk about the example and beliefs of 'the Church' as if there is a thread of absolute consistency over the time since Jesus walked on earth, and that's just not the case. So I'll continue to return to the Bible, thanks, while acknowledging and hopefully learning from the example of Christians through the ages. But I won't accept any appeal to the authority of the church, because the church has never spoken with one voice (and even if it did, it might have been wrong IMO).
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I don't think any of us here are entirely solipsistic ...
Even those who hold more loosely to 'received tradition' as it were such as Belle Ringer, Hatless and South Coast Kevin (in their different ways, they aren't all on the same page by any means) aren't operating without external points of reference.
For SCK it's the Bible - but it's the Bible mediated through a particular approach and tradition. Just as it is for all of us. The Bible doesn't float around in the ether independently of anything else.
None of this stuff is 'self-evident'.
Whatever conclusions we arrive at - from the most 'ultramontane' - which is where IngoB seems to be coming from - to an 'it's all up for grabs' theological liberalism, which is the paradigm where Hatless appears to be operating - we arrive at them through a whole process of influences, reflections and debate.
The fact that any of us count any source of authority as authoritative is largely because someone else has told us so and, for whatever reason and by whatever process, we have come to agree with them.
That applies to all of us - SCK, IngoB, Hatless, Belle Ringer, Chris Stiles, Fr Weber ... whoever else.
I agree with Raptor Eye, there are a whole raft of interweaving and inter-acting processes going on here ... the scriptures (and our interpretation of them according to our particular lights and traditions/filters etc), the Church - whether understood in a small c or a Big C way - traditions and Tradition and the Holy Spirit working in and through the whole thing.
I don't think anyone here is saying that authority lies with whatever thought happens to bob into their heads.
There's a continuum with wriggle-room along it.
Where we draw the line is the issue.
And there are a whole range of factors involved in where we do that.
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Right, chris; and I think it's worth pointing out that "sola scriptura" means not that we believe nothing that isn't in the Bible, but that we can be required to believe only what can be proved from the Bible.
In particular I find SCK's use of Scripture puzzling; it essentially seems to treat the Bible as a magical artifact which dropped on our doorsteps without any mediation whatsoever, and which authenticates itself. The Church selected, preserved, and transmitted those books; if the Church can be trusted to have done so properly, then the Church's use of it before AD 1910 shouldn't be discounted. Neither should the liturgical practice of that Church be handwaved, as some seem to want to do, since that is the very same milieu in which all those selectors, preservers, and transmitters believed and worked.
{Retrieves old fundamentalist hat from attic. Dusts it off.}
I'm no longer fundamentalist. But I still understand it; and I see value in it, and liturgical churches, and many other approaches. So maybe I can shed a little light, or not. YMMV.
I think where RCs* and fundamentalist Protestants don't understand each other is their perspectives on the place and operation of God and people.
The RCC, as I understand it, believes that God gave us the Church, via St. Peter. (And, by default, that's the Roman Catholic Church, from which various other denominations/churches separated. As in John XXIII's reference to "separated brethren".) God gave and gives the RCC the knowledge, rituals, rules, and tools that people need for eternal salvation. There may be salvation outside the Church, but the Church is where you *know* it is happening. Anything else is God's business. The priest mediates between God and humans, especially in the Eucharist, and he is very necessary. Human beings who try to go it on their own are foolish, wrong, and in spiritual danger.
In the fundamentalist Protestant view, from my experience and observation, God is believed to have cut out the middle man. None of the in-between stuff is necessary. God works with individuals directly. "There is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." And the Bible was given directly to human beings--even dictated to scribes. Infallible in the original manuscripts. Anything else--human reason, tradition--is both unnecessary and wrong, even spiritually dangerous. And some view hierarchies/denominations of any kind in the same way.
So both groups believe God loves us, saves us, and interacts with us. The RCC believes that God works directly through it, which then passes down all that's necessary for salvation. Catholics have to accept it and follow it. Fundamentalist Protestants believe that God works directly through people and Scripture, and gives us all that's necessary for salvation. Fund. Protestants have to make a personal decision to accept Christ, and follow Scripture.
As to Scripture**: the fundamentalist Protestant view is that the Bible is basically a user's guide, straight from the Maker. It's all of a piece, even though dictated over a period of time.
As to magic: And this, also, has two sides. Many churches, denominations, and people see the fundamentalist Protestant view of Scripture as magic. But many people see the RC understanding of the Eucharist as magic, too.
IMHO, it depends on what you emphasize. For instance, fundamentalist Protestants are often criticized for taking Scripture literally. But the RCC takes the words of institution for the Eucharist ("this is My body, this is My blood", etc.) more literally than fundamentalist Protestants. It's just a matter of which things you take literally.
Maybe both groups can cut each other some slack? Seeing through a glass darkly, and all that.
*For the purposes of this discussion, I'm equating "the Church" (as some posters referenced it) with the RCC. The simplest approach, I think. No offense to any other Christian Churches/denominations/groups intended.
**It's late, and I can't pull together a summary of the RC view of Scripture.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think that's a fair summary of what might be called the 'polar positions' in those respective traditions, Golden Key -- ultra-traditional Roman Catholicism on the one hand and ultra-conservative Protestant fundamentalism on the other.
As always, though, there is elasticity between those two extremes. Which is a very Anglican thing for me to say of course ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The Orthodox position is similar to the RCC one only the perception of the role of the Papacy and Magisterium is different - and it's more collegial than the RC 'take' ...
It strikes me that there are anomalies on all sides.
It's often struck me how some Baptists (and no offence intended here to either hatless or Baptist Trainfan) are more than willing to accept - and indeed revel in - the idea that God the Holy Spirit has guided and directed the decisions of their own congregational 'church meeting' but would have an apopleptic fit if asked to accept that God was similarly guiding and directing the work of some Church Council (Big C) or other ...
Somehow, it's alright for them on a local level to claim guidance and direction from the Almighty, but not to extend the same courtesy to anyone else on a broader or more 'universal' level ...
Equal and opposite narks occur at the other end of the spectrum with the RCC and the Orthodox ...
However we cut it, there's always going to be something we're going to bash our shins against ...
--------------------
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
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Thanks for the links. I'll have a browse over the next day or two. No thanks to you, however, for the implication of bad faith on my part.
It's not "bad" faith as in you consciously doing evil, or being a hypocrite. It's "bad" faith as in you applying a modern individualistic outlook to faith that centres on text interpretation. That simply doesn't work, no matter how sincere and even holy you might be. If I am implying an individual fault, then only that in my opinion you have not thought this approach through - as is evident by you using it. Obviously my words are harsh, but in my experience anything less than explosive wording doesn't even register. We are all excellent at listening right past what the other is saying, taking their very words as meaning whatever we need them to mean.
And yes, Gamaliel, everybody has some "tradition" in what they do. I did not mean to imply that people live isolated in oxygen tents. But that is not relevant at the right level. That is relevant at the same level as asking whether the RCC or the Orthodox or perhaps the Ethiopians are "the" Church. For the discussion at hand those are however all variations of the same idea, just as much of Protestantism is a variation of a different idea. (Though some of the more drastic charismatic stuff might be a different idea again.)
In the end, there is some process happening when we say "this is true". And I mean here truths of faith, so if we could avoid the inane discussion about "certainty" that would be nice. Even the most absurd "doubt is faith" rhetoric does not stop people from acting as if they think that certain things are "true enough".
My point was precisely the inverse of people accusing me of having left my brain at the door, being a slave to RC doctrine etc. There is a level at which this is obviously false - clearly I'm exercising my brain copiously when posting "apologetics" here. But there is also a level at which this is true, and it is at a kind of "principle procedural" level. In order to move anything, you need a place to firmly plant your feet, and that's true also for the mind. And beyond all the detail, we do recognise where people plant their feet. So what I say here is that at this level, Protestantism just doesn't make sense. It has planted its feet on the quicksand of interpreting a text individually. If it tries to push to move, invariably it will start sinking. It's a methodological fault, it's not a personal fault and it hence cannot be cured by reforming one's character - or for that matter even by God Himself (assuming God is not willing to turn the world into a completely different place).
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Gamaliel said:
quote:
Somehow, it's alright for them on a local level to claim guidance and direction from the Almighty, but not to extend the same courtesy to anyone else on a broader or more 'universal' level ...
It's a basic human thing, and not limited to religion. We're scared that, if we're wrong, Bad Things Will Happen To Us. So we want to believe that we're right--and, to be certain and safe in our rightness, we believe that everyone else is wrong, to one degree or another. Applies whether you're talking about spiritual authority, political parties, or the best place to buy silverware for someone's wedding present.
--------------------
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
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
the action of a special person (the priest) is, at least in normal circumstances, needed to mediate this special meeting with God.
It may be helpful to put this aside as a secondary matter for now - as it is clearly of some importance to you.
quote:
So I'll continue to return to the Bible, thanks, while acknowledging and hopefully learning from the example of Christians through the ages. But I won't accept any appeal to the authority of the church, because the church has never spoken with one voice (and even if it did, it might have been wrong IMO).
The thing is that whilst Zwinglism may reign in evangelicalism - it's perfectly possibly to take a sola scriptura viewpoint and come to the conclusions that Calvin or even Luther did. That's not an appeal to authority - that's simply pointing to possibilities that have to be dealt with, rather than writing these people off as insufficiently Protestant. There is a huge amount of developed thought on this subject of which my post was not even the tiniest summary.
I think your point (a) would be undeniably true if we took the sacraments as a work of man - in which case they'd just be another ladder to try and reach God (like moralism, spritualism or intellectualism can be). I think it is very instructive to see the parallels scripture draws between them and various acts in the OT, and in doing so the category difference becomes clearer.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yes, I think there's something in that, Golden Key.
Infuriatingly, perhaps, I also think there's something in what IngoB is saying.
It's very hard for Protestants to 'give up' the individualistic thing because it's hard-wired into our spiritual DNA ... in a similar way that acceptance (or acquiescence) to ecclesial authority is hard-wired into the more Catholic psyches - of both West and East.
For Baptists, for instance, to accept or concede that Church Councils can be 'authoritative' beyond the point where it becomes uncomfortable for them to do so, would be to radically rethink or reform their own position ... and perhaps accept that the RCC or the Orthodox were right all along ...
That ain't going to happen any time soon - at least not on a corporate level.
Conversely, were RCCs and Orthodox to 'back down' on their view of the intrinsic authority of Holy Church or Holy Tradition would be to radically reassess, re-evaluate their own position ... and to risk reforming themselves in a way that might lead to what they consider dangerous territory ...
And they can cite all many of off-centre and wierd and whacky groups such as the Mormons to indicate the consequences of going down an overly individualistic route ...
--------------------
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
I cross-posted with Chris Stiles.
In a sense, Chris's view represents a kind of 'third way' between that adopted by the heirs of the radical reformation - the more Zwinglian stance that characterises South Coast Kevin's approach (and that of hatless from a different direction within the same broad tradition) ...
I'm not sure I'd entirely agree with Chris that his is a 'sola scriptura' position ... but that depends on what we mean by 'sola scriptura' of course ... and I'm not convinced that a 'sola scriptura' response is tenable in the way it is often popularly understood or portrayed.
Chris Stiles wouldn't have his more 'modified' sacramental position in the first place if it hadn't drawn from earlier models within Catholicism.
And so on and on we go, arguing about who has the right interpretation of how things were 'ad fontes' ...
--------------------
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 Gamaliel:
Chris Stiles wouldn't have his more 'modified' sacramental position in the first place if it hadn't drawn from earlier models within Catholicism.
Well, yes. No. Maybe. The Reformers (clue in the name) didn't think that everything was wrong with Catholicism. ISTM that just junking sacramentalism altogether because it parts are superficially similar to a view adopted by the RCC would be a fairly reactionary - rather than scriptural - position to take. So I don't think pointing out parallels particular proves anything wrt to sola scriptura.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think it does, but then that's probably a tangent and for another discussion ... preferably not a Dead Horses one ...
Be that as it may, though, I do think you're offering a 'third way' between ... I dunno ... a kind of Chapter 29 paragraph 1.2b line 7 Catholic Encyclopaedia approach and a kind of Zwinglianism taken to an extreme position where everything and anything is suspect apart from one's own particular solipsistic ideas.
Not that I'm accusing anyone here of that ...
There are degrees and nuances between full-on positions on both sides of this debate.
Not all Zwinglian or individualistic 'let's go by the Bible and our own experiences' approaches end up in full-on Illuminism.
But the danger is there.
Which is why I like Tom Smail's analogy about having a whopping big elastic band around our waists which secures us to the mainstream thrust of the historic tradition.
--------------------
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
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Gamaliel--
Is that like lashing yourself to a ship's mast during a storm?
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, it's more like going pot-holing with a whopping big elastic band around your waist secured to a pole in the centre of the main chamber of the cave system you are exploring.
You can venture up side alleys and passages, even clamber down a few chasms or up precipices, but providing you've got your elastic band in place its centrifugal force will keep you tethered and draw you back to the fixed point of the central pole.
Like all analogies, it will only take us so far ...
Before the elastic snaps ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
but providing you've got your elastic band in place its centrifugal force will keep you tethered and draw you back to the fixed point of the central pole.
I think you've got your forces confused there. Centrifugal force is the effect of a rotating object moving away from the axis (it's not even really a force, it's inertia). Centripetal force would be the force pulling back towards the centre. And, your elastic band is exerting a different force entirely.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Gravity is the force you're looking for: tradition is your star around which you orbit, giving you light and enabling you to navigate.
Of course, some people's tradition is more like a supermassive black hole...
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I like the summaries that have been posted recently.
Communion is the most 'traditional' bit of worship for most non-conformists. We might adapt it in various ways and make changes from time to time, but the only reason we do it at all is because of the stories of Jesus doing this sort of thing (quite differently in Luke from Matthew and Mark, and weirdly turned into acted commentary in John - in practice we follow Paul).
We step into the world of Jesus when we have communion, and we're also strongly aware of past communions in our lives, in this particular church, and in other places and times. Many will know Gregory Dix's famous page on 'do this'.
Communion offers us a timeless moment, a transcendent connection, and at the same time it is completely particular, here and now. It makes present and visible the whole of our response to the Gospel - all that making flesh in youth club, food bank and friendship is brought to the heart of worship in bread and wine.
It belongs to no one, because it belongs to all. It is gift and obedience. It is the most inward thing a congregation does, but also the most connected and universal. It is where unity is named and disunity felt most keenly, where the absent and the separated are always prayed for.
Because it is enacted, and because the people present are the actors, it is never the same. It is symbol and so means far more than words can say or a lifetime can appreciate.
These days any congregation will have people who were formerly of other denominations. This is one of the ways that tradition is felt at communion, and helpfully, not as a single voiced monolith half buried in the past, but as a living conversation we can hardly fail to be part of, if we have the least bit of sensitivity.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think that's a beautiful and moving summary of how communion is understood - at its best (as it were) within the non-conformist or 'dissenting' tradition, hatless.
I enjoyed reading it.
I don't think the themes you've highlighted are necessarily lost or under-emphasised elsewhere, although obviously those with a more Catholic or sacramental approach are going to take a more 'realised' view of some aspects.
Coming back to the flawed analogy (as all analogies are) of the elastic band and centripetal forces ... (centriPETRINE anyone? ... ) - I was never very good at physics so yes, I was getting my forces mixed up ...
Which is why I ended up doing an arts degree and effectively making myself unemployable ( ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ) ...
(That last bit isn't strictly true, I'm messin' ...)
I've tried to avoid subjectivity on this thread to some extent - whilst being aware that it's not entirely possible to do so ... but it's pretty obvious that our attitude towards Tradition and traditions depends on where we stand.
For some they are a source of constancy and comfort - 'We won't go far wrong if we observe this, this and this ... or believe this, that and that ...'
For others, as Doc Tor says, the central fastening pole or pillar could end up as some kind of Black Hole or quagmire.
There's always a tension - creative hopefully - between tradition and innovation.
Intriguingly, I've recently commissioned a trainee iconographer to paint me an icon of a South Walian Saint (we were born in the same hospital which is named after this particular Saint). He tells me that whilst there are strict and formal rules on how icons are to be painted, the personality of the iconographer invariably comes through. It is sublimated, certainly, but not eradicated.
Picasso had to know how to draw 'conventionally' before he could break or bend the rules. What was it he said, 'It took me 20 years to draw like Raphael, a lifetime to draw like a child ...'
Or something like that.
Coltrane could obviously play the sax conventionally with consummate skill in order to be able to break free of the accepted forms in his solos ...
So, I tend to see the way we interact with traditions (or Tradition) as a both/and thing ... a certain amount of improvisation is permissible around a central 'theme'.
There is risk involved with that, of course. But there are also risks in not improvising within the over-arching framework ...
There's a balance somewhere.
--------------------
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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So, we have the authority of Christ in the gospels and His first hand interpreters in a few letters.
Where is the Holy Spirit authoritative? Beyond the supernatural acts concerning Jesus and the apostolic church?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
In particular I find SCK's use of Scripture puzzling; it essentially seems to treat the Bible as a magical artifact which dropped on our doorsteps without any mediation whatsoever, and which authenticates itself.
I'm trying to walk the line between respecting the Christian witness of the last 2,000 years, and returning to the Bible and the nature of God revealed therein through Jesus.
You and others talk about the example and beliefs of 'the Church' as if there is a thread of absolute consistency over the time since Jesus walked on earth, and that's just not the case. So I'll continue to return to the Bible, thanks, while acknowledging and hopefully learning from the example of Christians through the ages. But I won't accept any appeal to the authority of the church, because the church has never spoken with one voice (and even if it did, it might have been wrong IMO).
Well, there is a thread of absolute consistency as I see it. Perhaps not unanimous consistency, though, and maybe that's what troubles you. Would it have to be truly unanimous, or would the presence of one dissenter queer the deal?
We can have this disagreement because the text of Scripture is patient of more than one interpretation. I freely admit that I am viewing Scripture through the lens of a particular religious tradition. I am not sure if you realize that your view of Scripture is likewise mediated through a particular tradition. There is no such thing as an unmediated text.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So, we have the authority of Christ in the gospels and His first hand interpreters in a few letters.
Where is the Holy Spirit authoritative? Beyond the supernatural acts concerning Jesus and the apostolic church?
Where? I said it probably a million times: in the life of the Church. That is the ancient liturgies, the holy fathers and councils, the lives of the saints etc.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
We can have this disagreement because the text of Scripture is patient of more than one interpretation. I freely admit that I am viewing Scripture through the lens of a particular religious tradition. I am not sure if you realize that your view of Scripture is likewise mediated through a particular tradition. There is no such thing as an unmediated text.
I know it was addressed at SCK, and he can answer for himself, but the vast majority of those of us who do not sit within one of the traditional strands of Christianity are well aware that we approach Scripture from our own tradition, with our own set of rose-tinted spectacles.
That is a universal phenomenum, and one not just limited to the reading of the Bible. The Bible is in many ways the first installment of the Tradition of the Church. Later parts of that Tradition are, of course, useful and informative - those of us from the more Protestant strands of the Church would probably not place as much authority there as you might. But, those parts of the Tradition of the Church are as prone to being read in the context of later tradition as the Bible itself.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
A few observations ...
I think that's broadly the case, Alan Cresswell, across we might call the more reflective sectors of evangelicalism ... they are well aware that their 'take' is one among several and that their position is as much a 'tradition' as anyone else's ...
But it's far from universal.
I was speaking to a Baptist minister who is towards the liberal end of the evangelical spectrum yesterday and he was telling me how he'd lost some long-standing members of his church recently because his preaching was 'too liberal' ...
These people didn't have a particularly nuanced idea of what it meant to be 'Bible-believing' ... they had no concept whatsoever of the Bible being a 'mediated' text ...
They weren't 'thick' - but neither do I think they were unusual.
Only the Holy Spirit ... well, back in my more full-on charismatic days I was surprised to find that RCs and Orthodox considered their rituals and formularies, hymnology and eucharistic practices etc to be pneumatic.
As soon as I understand that this was how they view these aspects I was a lot more able to understand what they were getting at.
The work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church is more than goose-bumps or a particular approach/view of the way that spiritual gifts operate.
Thank goodness.
--------------------
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
Then there's this, which I think is quite a 'telling' example of where many (if not most) of us are coming from ... ie, that our particular 'take' is axiomatic and the default one ... and therefore that everyone else has to justify theirs rather than us having to justify ours ...
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
This side doesn't need an argument. It's the sacramentalist side who are trying to demonstrate something, namely that certain rituals / activities should be considered categorically different from any other rituals / activities we might do.
[/QUOTE]
One could argue in this instance that it is 'your' side which does need an argument, South Coast Kevin ... it needs to have an argument as to why it has departed from or altered what was the prevailing view within the Christian Church for hundreds of years.
Of course, arguments can be put forward to justify reform and change ... but that's the point. There have to arguments put forward to justify it.
A 'low' or 'non' sacramental approach was a novelty when it first emerged in the wake of the Reformation - the radical reformers taking things further than the Magisterial Reformers, of course.
I'm not debating the rights and wrongs of that, simply saying that it's a pretty big assumption to contend - or apparently contend - that such a position is axiomatic and needs no defence.
And, of course, a similar charge could be levied in the opposite direction ... with the burden of proof for the antiquity of a high view of the sacraments lying with the sacramentalists.
The Sub-Apostolic Fathers seemed to have a pretty 'high' view of the Eucharist, for instance - and also the role of 'elders/bishops' ... although I have heard Baptists come to different conclusions (more in line with their own tradition, of course) as to what the more 'contentious' references in some 2nd century writings mean ...
We pays our money, we makes our choice ...
But from what I can see it's pretty clear that a fairly 'developed' view of particular sacraments and ordinances developed very quickly - and of course, whatever practices any of us have adopted we all claim NT precedent ...
Those of us from a more 'non-conformist' background or tradition aren't going to interpret particular NT references in the same way as those from more sacramentalist traditions - although there will be broad areas of overlap and commonality of course.
--------------------
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
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
So, we have the authority of Christ in the gospels and His first hand interpreters in a few letters.
Where is the Holy Spirit authoritative? Beyond the supernatural acts concerning Jesus and the apostolic church?
Not only in the past, Martin, in the present and in the future: in the lives and example of those who serve so that God is seen; in the scriptures when verses come alive; in calling when the Holy Spirit pounds on our hearts until we relent and capitulate: in the profound depth of the Eucharistic feast; in the public declaration of our commitment to Christ as we yield before God's greatness in baptism or confirmation and rise into new life: the supernatural acts of God never ceased, and never will.
Perhaps the lack of current Christian role models, saints through whom God is seen, leaves us lacking the sense of God's will being done. Perhaps they are there but cynicism or deception form a hedge around them. Perhaps our rules of stature value such attributes as sporting prowess or ability to perform higher on the scale than holiness.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nice rhetoric Raptor Eye.
Intriguing in that the lack of role models is normal and feeds back in to Ad Orientem's appeal to the authority of a mythical golden age.
I am impressed as ninepunce by the Cappadocian Fathers I must admit. Happy for any other timeless examples that fit on the trajectory.
But none of those that close it down.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Pellinore
Quester Emeritus
# 12163
|
Posted
An interesting thread. I think fletcher Christian and IngoB have said more or less what I believe to be the difference between Christianity and the sacraments and Magic and the way it is supposed to work. The late Joseph Campbell said that Magic, under certain circumstances, might work, but, in saying that, issued no imprimatur. Much to do with Magic (apart from parlour tricks) is said to be to do with hypnotism, sometimes of a sort of group hypnotism about which we know little in the West. Louise Samways, a qualified and registered clinical psychologist - an agnostic btw - mentions this in her book Dangerous Persuaders, which can be read online on her website http://www.louisesamways.com.au/book-portfolio/ She also mentions Magic and the adverse effect it has had on some of her clients.
--------------------
Well...
Posts: 5108 | From: The Deep North, Oz | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Intriguing in that the lack of role models is normal and feeds back in to Ad Orientem's appeal to the authority of a mythical golden age.
I'm not referring to any "mythical golden age". I'm referring to the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church which continues to this very day.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
In other words the mythic golden age: 'That is the ancient liturgies, the holy fathers and councils, the lives of the saints'.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I'm not referring to any "mythical golden age". I'm referring to the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church which continues to this very day.
Yes, you keep saying that. But when you point at some Orthodox person and say "this is a saint, this is exemplary, this is the work of the Holy Spirit", then you are using some standard, some measure, some rule to do so - whether you are aware of that or not. One of our beloved liberal brethren here might point to a rather different Orthodox person, and make the same claim about them - and dispute yours. Then what? How do you show that your selection criteria are the right ones, and theirs are not?
If you point at more people, for example the saints that your church has acknowledged in the past, then you establish a kind of sacred history as the real rule. If you appeal to the majority opinion of the current Orthodox, then you establish a kind of democratic decision process as the real rule. If you appeal to a set of standards as perhaps written down or perhaps orally passed on, then you establish a behavioural codex as the rule. And so on. As you get pressed to state clearly what you mean, your actual rule will start to appear out of the vague, pious musings that you appear to prefer. And if your challenger is mean and will press you hard, then you will have to get down into the nitty-gritty of it all. How do you know that your sacred history was not corrupted? Who says that your democratic process is actually working, and anyhow, since when is truth democratic? How did those standards arise, how do we know that they got passed on faithfully, why can we not now change them?
You have opted for a communion that has led a sheltered life, as far as doctrinal and liturgical challenges are concerned. If nine hundred ninety-nine out of a thousand people say that blue is the best colour, then it is easy to stand with them and declare blue to be obviously the best. In the West it has been colour wars for a long time, and so things are different. You think they are worse, because you see the splashes of red and green and yellow everywhere. Well, all I can say is that you should enjoy your monochromatic time while it lasts. I give it a few decades... Orthodox splendid isolation is pretty much over.
--------------------
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
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The thing is, though, the Orthodox could make a similar challenge in reverse, IngoB ... how do you know that your more Papal and Magisterium-based system trumps their more collegial and 'democratic' one?
It seems to me that all of this boils down to what sources of authority we trust the most ... in your case it's Papal authority, in the Orthodox case it's the collegial authority of a group of Autocephalous Churches that together form the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as they see it ...
With the Protestants well ... it goes every which way as the Americans say with a continuum that stretches from a mildly reformed version of what you guys are into on the one hand to various versions of free-for-all illuminism over at the far end ... taking in both woodenly literal and more nuanced interpretations of scripture ...ranging from the inflexibly fundamentalist to the 'so liberal you wonder if they actually believe in anything at all' ...
I agree with you that Orthodox isolationism can't continue. At the moment, they are engaging with the rest of us in the hope that they'll convert us to their way of thinking ...
That'll work with some of us, but not others. Conversely, some of what we do - good, bad or indifferent - will inevitably start to run off on them ...
Then what'll they do ...
--------------------
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
Anyway, coming back to the 'magic' thing - I agree with Sir Pellinore that Fletcher Christian and IngoB - in their different ways - have 'nailed' the difference between the sacraments and magic ...
I also liked the observations Teufelchen made about the differences between Christian and pagan ritual - although I accept that there are going to be a range of views on that one - as exemplified by T's pagan partner.
Along the way, I've also enjoyed reading hatless's observations and South Coast Kevin's challenges ... although I still think he's missing the point to some extent ...
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
As I probably am too, truth be told ...
--------------------
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
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... You have opted for a communion that has led a sheltered life, as far as doctrinal and liturgical challenges are concerned. ...
Perhaps they've had bigger things to worry about, sacking by crusaders, subjection to the Turks and persecution by Joseph Stalin to name three of them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... You have opted for a communion that has led a sheltered life, as far as doctrinal and liturgical challenges are concerned. ...
Perhaps they've had bigger things to worry about, sacking by crusaders, subjection to the Turks and persecution by Joseph Stalin to name three of them.
Yes, indeed. It is often the case that a community under external pressure "homogenises" internally. If there is a clear and present threat from "them", it is psychologically easy to be "us". But that pressure is largely gone in most places - and in some places in the Middle East, it is now simply squashing the remaining communities into non-existence.
I think in the near future the Orthodox are going to have to deal with just the same shit that the RCC has been dealing with for five centuries in general and five decades in particular. I see no particular reason why they should fare better than the RCC, rather, I see good reasons why they should fare a lot worse.
With one exception though, and it is a curious one. There is among trad RCs a theory, which basically goes like this: it's all due to the liturgy. Consider it like the backbone of the Church. Thus, the theory goes, post Vatican II liturgical revolutionaries broke the backbone of the Church, and she has been flopping around helplessly ever since. Now, in general I have always thought that this theory is bunk, and that it simply is a desperate attempt to assign a monocausal explanation to a complicated problem. And furthermore that it simply reflects the preoccupation of most trads with the liturgy. But of late I've been slightly warming to this point of view. Basically, the more cynical I get about people the more likelihood I assign to something that silly being possibly true. But the Orthodox in some sense represent a social experiment concerning this. I see lots of reasons why they should fall apart along the lines of the RCC over the next few decades. But as of yet, their liturgy seems to remain largely untouched, there seem to be no liturgical revolutionaries poised to take on this particular part of tradition. So if the Orthodox keep going as they are in spite of smacking into Western modernity head on now, then just maybe I have to revise my opinion on this particular trad theory. If the Orthodox hold, then maybe the liturgy is where it's at after all. I can honestly say that this would surprise me, and very much not play to my own preferences (I just have little interest in liturgy). But it is the sort of thing where I could easily be wrong. We will see...
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
