|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What is a sacrament?
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I am not a great theologian and I come from a tradition which doesn't have much to do with what are traditionally regarded as sacraments.
I've come up with a working definition of "sacrament" that goes like this:
quote:
A sacrament is a practice that by its nature confers divine grace irrespective of the human agent that implements it
Is that a fair description? How would you qualify or amend it? Is there any functional difference between a sacrament and what is commonly referred to as "magic", and if so what is it?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
It probably won't surprise you that there are huge denominational differences in the definition, so expect to see a number of quite different responses to your questions.
To get the ball rolling, within the Reformed tradition we generally define a sacrament something like this "a visible demonstration of God's invisible acts, instituted by God." So there is always:
1. Some sort of visual representation (water, bread, wine)
2. Some invisible action on God's part (conferring grace)
3. A biblical precedent that can be inferred to be divine institution
YMMV.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
The term was always defined by the Methodism of my youth using Augustine's "An outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace." That certainly doesn't get you to the pinched list of sacraments that typify Protestantism (or Catholicism, for that matter), but it still works for me.
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I was certainly hoping for a wide range of responses...
One I might entertain but which doesn't seem to qualify under either of the two lists supplied so far is preaching. Does nobody think that's a sacrament?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think that the more 'catholic' traditions see word and sacrament as belonging together, Eutychus ... at least that's my probably very partial understanding.
I've been reading some very simple RC devotional material and that's the impression I get there ... God is present in his word written, as it were, just as he is in the sacrament of bread and wine.
So, by extension, preaching also has a sacramental quality to it even if it doesn't have a Big S.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Augustine who teaches that a sacrament is "a visible sign of a sacred thing" or "a visible form of an invisible grace"
John Calvin "Institutes of the Christian Religion" Book 4 Chapter XIV section 1.
quote:
And it is sufficiently known that what the Latins call "sacraments the Greeks call "mysteries" The identity of meaning banishes all controversy and from this it came to be applied to those signs which reverently represented sublime and spiritual things"
John Calvin "Institutes of the Christian Religion" Book 4 Chapter XIV section 2
quote:
Now from the definition tat I have set forth we understand that a sacrament is never without a preceding promise but is joined to it as a sort of appendix, with the purpose of confirming and sealing the promise itself and making it more evident to us and in a sense ratifying it
John Calvin "Institutes of the Christian Religion" Book 4 Chapter XIV section 3
When Calvin says "appendix", he is thinking rather of the royal seal on a charter that is appended to give it authority not an added extra.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I am not a great theologian and I come from a tradition which doesn't have much to do with what are traditionally regarded as sacraments.
I've come up with a working definition of "sacrament" that goes like this:
quote:
A sacrament is a practice that by its nature confers divine grace irrespective of the human agent that implements it
Is that a fair description? How would you qualify or amend it? Is there any functional difference between a sacrament and what is commonly referred to as "magic", and if so what is it?
I would say that's a perfectly good description.
My impression is that magic is a matter of the will of the individual who is performing it. Sacraments, on the other hand, don't work because of the will of the person celebrating them; that will can be defective or non-existent, that person could be a complete apostate. So it's not his intent, but the intent of the Church, which is important.
God is not trapped in the host by the will of the magician; God deigns to be present in fulfillment of his own promise.
I believe the Polish National Catholic Church considers preaching the Word to be a sacrament.
--------------------
"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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I was certainly hoping for a wide range of responses...
One I might entertain but which doesn't seem to qualify under either of the two lists supplied so far is preaching. Does nobody think that's a sacrament?
Not in the Reformed tradition, although, as Gamaliel indicated is true of other traditions, they are seen as linked (in fact, my ordination is called "Minister of Word & Sacrament"). Both are ways of proclaiming the gospel-- but different ways, one verbal, the other enacted.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
The term in the Reformed tradition for preaching is supra-sacramental, that is the sacraments validity is intrinsically connected with the proclamation of the gospel. The proclamation being that of the promises of God to which the sacraments act as a seal.
There is thus a fine connection between sacraments and preaching but they are not the same.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I would say that's a perfectly good description.
I think you're the only one so far to (implicitly) agree with the "irrespective of the human agent" bit... Does the status or standing of the agent matter to others?
quote:
My impression is that magic is a matter of the will of the individual who is performing it.
I don't think I agree with this. It seems to me that magic is effective inasmuch as the beneficiaries (or victims) believe in it, rather than being dependent on the willpower of the agent. Isn't that how it works for the Church and the sacraments, too, at the end of the day? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574
|
Posted
The Holy Spirit makes a sacrament. It is a visible sign through which God works and Christ is the one who administers them. Seeing as Augustine has been mentioned already in this thread certainly he didn't believe that the sacraments were limited to seven signs,for instance, he considered the sign of the cross to be a sacrament.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think - and someone will correct me if I'm wrong - that you're thinking of the 'ex opere operato' thing in RC theology that suggests that a sacrament will always achieve its purpose/effect irrespective of the fitness of whoever administers it.
This can sound rather like magic, but I don't think it's the same ...
I do struggle with this one.
Mind you, I get the impression that the mileage varies even among the Orthodox - who are less prescriptive about these things than the Latin West, of course.
I'll give you a for instance ...
I once attended a special Orthodox service where they were venerating a famous Russian icon that was touring the UK. I pitched in and did everything that they did. At the close of the service there was an opportunity to be anointed with oil by three priests who were present - they use a stylus thing and anoint you with the sign of the cross on your forehead, eye lids, nostrils, mouth, hands and chest ... if I remember rightly. It was quite something and I had it done by three priests in turn.
Afterwards, one of the Orthodox said to me, 'You've got no chance now, Phil, the sacred oil will enter your pores and make you Orthodox from the inside out ...'
When I told this to an old university friend who is now Orthodox, she laughed. 'The sacraments aren't magic you know!'
Conversely, when I told a FB friend who used to be an Orthodox priest, he said that this is exactly how these things work and the oil would have its way, as it were, whether I liked it or not ...
I wonder what Ad Orientem's view would be of that?
Anyway, for my own part, I think it's fair to say that I am becoming more sacramental in my approach - I have a 'higher' and more 'developed' view of the eucharist than I used to have, for instance.
That said, I don't believe that divine activity is limited to these things - and I don't believe the most ardent sacramentalists are saying that either. One might encounter the divine in a different way in a Quaker meeting or on top of a mountain or in a wood or beside the sea or in one's own living room than one might in the eucharist or other more formally sacramental act - but one can still encounter the divine in all those settings.
--------------------
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
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I would say that's a perfectly good description.
I think you're the only one so far to (implicitly) agree with the "irrespective of the human agent" bit... Does the status or standing of the agent matter to others?
quote:
My impression is that magic is a matter of the will of the individual who is performing it.
I don't think I agree with this. It seems to me that magic is effective inasmuch as the beneficiaries (or victims) believe in it, rather than being dependent on the willpower of the agent. Isn't that how it works for the Church and the sacraments, too, at the end of the day?
No. Those of us who believe in infant baptism would say that baptism enfolds the child into the Body of Christ and the Kingdom of God even as it is squalling at the indignity of being dunked in chilly water. We would also say that a person with serious mental deficiencies would receive God's grace in a bit of consecrated bread. It is about God's gifts, not about how much we comprehend about what we are receiving.
--------------------
"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
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I am rather suspicious of the proposed definition. I don't think human beings can compel God to do anything, so I am not comfortable with the notion that a human being performs a sacrament and divine grace is necessarily bestowed. I suppose a way around this is to say a sacrament is an action by God, but that makes it seem silly to schedule a wedding or a baptism or anything of the sort.
I think the various sacraments--and denominations do not agree on their number or identity--may each have unique characteristics. It may be pointless to look for them to have much in common.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not sure that even the most ardent sacramentalists would say that human beings are 'compelling' God to do anything - although sometimes one might get that kind of impression from the way they talk.
It's simply that, if they're Reformed, they'd see it as God ordaining it this way because that was his good pleasure ...
And if they're more Catholic they'd see it in a more synergistic way - human/divine co-operation. Although, arguably, it's also synergistic in some Reformed understandings - such as 'receptionism' where the faith of the participant is necessary for it to 'work' as it were.
For myself, I'm happy to leave all of this as a 'Mystery' - the Greeks are good at getting us out of tight spots ...
God chooses to work through sacraments but he isn't 'forced' to and can work without them too.
It's just that as this is a physical world and we are physical, creaturely beings, it makes sense that God is going to work in and through created matter or through rituals/practices etc.
We aren't disembodied spirits floating around on clouds. There's a physicality about water, about bread and wine, about gathering to sing, read, pray, chant or whatever else.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure that even the most ardent sacramentalists would say that human beings are 'compelling' God to do anything - although sometimes one might get that kind of impression from the way they talk.
It's simply that, if they're Reformed, they'd see it as God ordaining it this way because that was his good pleasure ...
Indeed, us Reformed would say that us humans aren't doing
anything, really. By applying some water or offering some bread & wine, really (we would say) all we're doing is pointing at what God has and is doing and saying "wow!". It is God who is doing the acting.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Gamaliel, the idea that you've been impregnated with Orthodox oil and that it's gradually altering you, like woodworm in a bit of furniture or metal fatigue in an old aeroplane, makes a lot of sense. I'm pretty sure a few bits have dropped off in the time you and I have been on board. (You're probably better off without them ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) )
What I want to ask about sacraments, is whether they only exist within particular language games. I can see that a certain place or set of words can have great power for a community of people with a shared history and common beliefs. Does anyone think it has any reality outside that community, though?
Suppose the youth group found the consecrated wafers and used them as poker chips, not knowing what they were. And they were put back, minus the one the dog ate, and no one in the church was any the wiser. Would anything of spiritual or other significance have happened?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I would say that's a perfectly good description.
I think you're the only one so far to (implicitly) agree with the "irrespective of the human agent" bit... Does the status or standing of the agent matter to others?
I should probably revise that to "irrespective of the disposition of the human agent." In other words, I do believe the sacraments have proper ministers. I can be certain that the Real Presence in the Eucharist will be available when a validly ordained priest consecrates bread and wine; I have no such certainty if Joe Schmoe off the street attempts to celebrate that sacrament.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Suppose the youth group found the consecrated wafers and used them as poker chips, not knowing what they were. And they were put back, minus the one the dog ate, and no one in the church was any the wiser. Would anything of spiritual or other significance have happened?
The idea that any of this might be possible is bizarre indeed, but yes, that would be an extreme act of desecration. I don't explain how the Host becomes Christ, but I know that it is His body.
"Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they have done" seems appropriate here.
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I am rather suspicious of the proposed definition. I don't think human beings can compel God to do anything, so I am not comfortable with the notion that a human being performs a sacrament and divine grace is necessarily bestowed.
Nobody is compelling God. God has, however, made certain promises, and he will keep them.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
In view of Fr Weber's comments, let me revise my working definition to
quote:
A sacrament is a practice that by its nature confers divine grace irrespective of the disposition of the human agent that implements it
Meanwhile...
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
It is about God's gifts, not about how much we comprehend about what we are receiving.
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough in expressing my thought. My question is closer to what hatless is saying:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
a certain place or set of words can have great power for a community of people with a shared history and common beliefs. Does anyone think it has any reality outside that community, though?
I didn't mean that the immediate beneficiary had to believe (e.g. the infant receiving baptism) but the community. Leorning Cniht seems to think that no, there is an intrinsic power (for want of a better word) in a consecrated sacrament that is independent not just of human dispositions, but of any human beliefs. If I may say so, this appears to be the most 'full-on' way of viewing the sacraments and the most foreign to my way of thinking.
(In pursuing my parallel "all possible means" thread, however, I'm wondering whether the Gospel message ("the power of God for salvation...") doesn't actually qualify as a sacrament in such a full-on way).
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Nobody is compelling God. God has, however, made certain promises, and he will keep them.
Note I myself didn't use the word "compelling". That said, can you give some example of the promises God makes about sacraments?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Leorning Cniht seems to think that no, there is an intrinsic power (for want of a better word) in a consecrated sacrament that is independent not just of human dispositions, but of any human beliefs. If I may say so, this appears to be the most 'full-on' way of viewing the sacraments and the most foreign to my way of thinking.
Let me be clear - I don't think that the body of Christ is some kind of magic pill. The person receiving has to be open to receiving Christ, or he will derive no benefit from it. But this doesn't mean that the fact that the Host itself is the Body of Christ is in any way dependent on the state of mind of anyone at the altar rail.
quote:
]Note I myself didn't use the word "compelling". That said, can you give some example of the promises God makes about sacraments?
For example, as regards the Eucharist, John 6:53-38 in conjunction with Matthew 26:26-29 is pretty clear to me.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Let me be clear - I don't think that the body of Christ is some kind of magic pill. The person receiving has to be open to receiving Christ, or he will derive no benefit from it.
In your way of thinking, does that apply to an infant receiving baptism? Retrospectively, perhaps? (I'm not trolling, this is a serious question!) Or do different conditions apply to different sacraments?
quote:
For example, as regards the Eucharist, John 6:53-38 in conjunction with Matthew 26:26-29 is pretty clear to me.
Ok, I thought you might come up with that one ![[Smile]](smile.gif) But it's not so easy for some of the others, is it (someone mentioned the sign of the cross...)? And that says nothing about the person dispensing the sacrament having to have a particular status, either...
And what about preaching? To your John 6 can I counter Romans 1 about the Gospel being "the power of God" and 1 Corinthians about preaching being "the foolishness of God for salvation". Is preaching a sacrament? And if not, why not?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I've often wondered about the aspect that Hatless has raised, ie. whether these things have 'intrinsic value' in and of themselves. I often think it's like coinage or stamps - to use a very imperfect analogy.
You can use these things in their country of origin and where they have validity, but you can't use sterling as common currency in Upper Volta, say, nor attach a first class Royal Mail stamp to a postcard in Japan and expect it to reach its destination ...
I do have a 'higher' approach to the eucharist these days but the inveterately Protestant parts of my being - those that the Orthodox oil have yet to permeate/lubricate ( ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ) - still baulks at what strikes me as a selective fundamentalism/literalness on the part of many more full-on sacramentalists.
In John 6:63 the Lord Jesus tells us that 'It is the Spirit who gives life, the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life.'
I've heard a number of Protestants use that verse to contradict a more literal understanding of what's been said up to that point and to indicate that Christ was telling us not to take 'the flesh' or physical things too seriously - because it was his words that give life ...
I'm not necessarily suggesting that these concepts are in opposition - that Christ added these words in an attempt to prevent people understanding his words about flesh and blood in an overly literal sense. But it does strike me that there's more ambiguity and mystery here than simply taking it all in a very literal sense - and again, as is often said, we don't literally believe that Christ is made up of vegetable matter when he said, 'I am the Vine ...'
All that said, and thinking about the parallel thread about 'by all means' it strikes me that we do well not to try to disentangle and dissociate these things ... the message from the medium as it were. 'What God hath joined together ...'
There is a tendency within Protestantism to do this, of course. To disaggregate scripture from Tradition (whilst merely replacing Big T with small or localised t's), to disaggregate the Gospel from the Church, the individual from the corporate, one's own subjective, personal opinion or approach from the collective 'mind' of the community as it were.
'Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold ...'
I suspect the kind of arm-twisting and sharp-practice that Eutychus highlights in the parallel thread is due, in part, to this sense of dis-integration ... we have ended up with a dis-integrated (in the literal sense) Gospel which is divorced from the continuity and flow of corporate faith and life.
Hence there are special 'evangelistic meetings' and tactics that have been developed over time that aim to elicit a particular response.
We have ended up with a Gospel 'message' rather than the Gospel itself - the reducing of that Gospel to a series of memorable sound-bites or simple propositions ... the 4 Spiritual Laws or whatever else.
This isn't simply a feature of Protestant evangelicalism, of course, one could highlight these tendencies across all traditions to a greater or lesser extent.
But I'm off on a tangent ...
--------------------
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 think Jengie Jon has already outlined the Reformed view of preaching, Eutychus - and the way that, whilst not a sacrament in the sense that the eucharist or baptism is, it nevertheless flows from the Gospel which infuses and give meaning to all of these things.
I've touched on this earlier too, suggesting that for the more Catholic traditions also preaching can and does have a salvific effect in that it plays its part alongside the sacraments and other means that God uses to bring us to himself and to help form us into his likeness.
Again, I wonder whether there's some kind of Protestant disaggregation going on here ... a kind of either/or rather than both/and?
Cliffdweller, who has an interesting joint Reformed (Presbyterian) and Pentecostal heritage has highlighted how she is seen as a minister of both 'word and sacrament.' The two things go together.
Why this obsession with disaggregating everything or setting one thing up over against another? 'You give me John 6, voila I give you Romans 1 ...'
The Gospel is more than preaching. It's more than sacraments. It's more than a 'message', a 'Gospel message' .... The Gospel is the Good News of Christ. In a sense the Gospel IS Christ.
Is Christ divided?
Why this apparent 'need' to section, filter and segment? Are we Gospel vivisectionists or anatomists?
Why should there be any opposition between Romans 1 and John 6? Can't the Gospel which is the power of God unto salvation for all who believe be expressed through preaching, through sacraments and by all manner of means besides? By word, by example, by martyrdom, by patient endurance, by acts of mercy and kindness, through working for social justice and the relief of suffering?
It is all these things and more.
--------------------
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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In your way of thinking, does that apply to an infant receiving baptism? Retrospectively, perhaps? (I'm not trolling, this is a serious question!) Or do different conditions apply to different sacraments?
Baptism is something that is done to the child (Romans 6 gives a good indication of what it does ) In the Eucharist, something is done to the bread and wine. Neither of these depends on the people involved.
You can't be a little bit baptized, and bread and wine can't be made a little bit Jesusy - it's all or nothing. How open you are to receiving grace, however, is up to you.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I've heard a number of Protestants use that verse to contradict a more literal understanding of what's been said up to that point and to indicate that Christ was telling us not to take 'the flesh' or physical things too seriously - because it was his words that give life ...
Reading John alone, you could interpret that as just being to do with the Word. In conjunction with the same language at the Last Supper, I think that door is closed. It's both/and.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Suppose the youth group found the consecrated wafers and used them as poker chips, not knowing what they were. And they were put back, minus the one the dog ate, and no one in the church was any the wiser. Would anything of spiritual or other significance have happened?
The idea that any of this might be possible is bizarre indeed, but yes, that would be an extreme act of desecration. I don't explain how the Host becomes Christ, but I know that it is His body.
"Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they have done" seems appropriate here.
Does desecration mean the undoing of sacredness? And if the wafers were subsequently used, say at a communion for the sick, would that communion be ineffective or invalid in some way?
I can't get my head round this way of thinking at all. I can understand that things acquire great importance within a community, but when you talk about knowing that the bread becomes the body, then you're saying this is like other public facts.
I hear it as a very assertive way of expressing what I can only understand as a private language game.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Why this obsession with disaggregating everything or setting one thing up over against another?
I think you're misunderstanding me.
My questions are about:
- what people understand by a sacrament
- what they think is included (however long the list is)
- the basis on which believers from different traditions include some things and rule out others
- whether this basis is consistent
- and whether a sacrament has any intrinsic, objective spiritual efficacy (something that hatless seems to doubt and I tend to agree with him)
This questioning is sparked partly by a discussion started in an ecumenical leaders' meeting last week and partly by my working hypothesis that decisionist evangelists, contra their apparent piety (so far down the candle that they think candles are idols), are functional sacramentalists as far as "praying the prayer" goes.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Does desecration mean the undoing of sacredness? And if the wafers were subsequently used, say at a communion for the sick, would that communion be ineffective or invalid in some way?
No - playing poker with the Body of Christ can't undo the consecration and turn it back into mere bread. It follows that a subsequent communion with the reserved sacrament is just as effective as normal. But "disrespectful" is too mild a word.
quote:
I can't get my head round this way of thinking at all. I can understand that things acquire great importance within a community, but when you talk about knowing that the bread becomes the body, then you're saying this is like other public facts.
I hear it as a very assertive way of expressing what I can only understand as a private language game.
Well, it's a statement of faith, of course. I don't know that the bread becomes the body in the same way that I know that Monday follows Sunday, or that David Cameron is the Prime Minister, but I know it in the same sense as I know that Jesus Christ is alive.
"things acquire great importance within a community" sounds like a symbol. I believe the Eucharist is more than that.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Let me be clear - I don't think that the body of Christ is some kind of magic pill. The person receiving has to be open to receiving Christ, or he will derive no benefit from it.
In your way of thinking, does that apply to an infant receiving baptism? Retrospectively, perhaps? (I'm not trolling, this is a serious question!) Or do different conditions apply to different sacraments?
I think you are possibly asking the wrong question, and would like to offer something that might be illuminating to this particular way of thinking from the excellent book "Hammer of God":
http://threehierarchies.blogspot.co.uk/2006/02/pastor-fridfeldt-on-infant-baptism-and_11.html
Sacraments are speech acts to which Christ has attached his promise. In receiving the sacrament we always receive Christ either as grace or as judgement.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
Sacraments are speech acts to which Christ has attached his promise. In receiving the sacrament we always receive Christ either as grace or as judgement.
OK, I'll try to get to reading your link when time allows.
That's an interesting definition and one that's a long way from my uneducated one.
Two questions: how does this fit with the sign of the cross (mentioned upthread)? And where does the status and or disposition of the person administering the sacrament fit in?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I don't think you can escape the variations of belief, Eutychus. For Catholics, the Eucharist is a partaking of the True Body, for most nonconformists Breaking of Bread is a memorial and an act of obedience to "do this in remembrance of me". For Catholics, the Bread itself is efficacious, regardless of the imperfections of the consecrator. For many nonconformists, the memorial act of obedience is central and in so far as the memorial act helps in sanctification it is efficacious.
The Catholic view is sacramental, the nonconformist memorial view is not.
Nonconformism in general exhibits considerable (some might say extreme) informality towards what other Christians regard as sacramental acts. In believers baptism, for example, you get the same concept of the centrality of obedience. The water does not effect an inner change, it is sign of a change which has already happened and an obedient witness to that.
The weakness of classic nonconformism in this respect seems to me to be a form of limiting scepticism over how the Grace of God may operate in the lives of fallible people.
Personally, I have had from the beginning a strong sense that more is taking place in Communion than just a memorial and an expression of obedience, though I'm hard put to explain why that has been a persistent notion.
On your general point, however it is put in practice, within nonconformism there is undoubtedly a sacramental attitude towards "preaching of the Word". Also "reading of the Word". There is a "power of God unto salvation" in the gospel which transcends human imperfection in delivery. And that power may come on you purely by reading. Not for nothing have millions of Gideon bibles been put in hotel rooms. There is a strong belief that the Word has objective power to save. That somehow (maybe that is a sacramental-type mystery) the voice of God is mediated to us in this way.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't think you can escape the variations of belief, Eutychus.
Perhaps not, but what this thread has taught me so far is that the notion of 'sacrament' seems to be derived entirely from various groups' tradition and corporate beliefs rather than directly from Scripture (including evangelical groups).
Chris Stiles' "speech acts to which Christ has attached his promise" sounds like a great idea to me but there's hardly a chapter and verse to go with that, is there?
Most of us can probably agree that Christ instituted or commanded various, um, ordinances, but the value we place on those varies massively.
I instinctively agree with you that there's more going on with the bread and wine than might meet the eye, but the view of the consecrated host put forward by Leorning Cniht is about as foreign to my instincts as it appears to be to hatless'.
Which is quite serious if it does have the intrinsic, objective value Leorning Cniht seems to believe it has.
(In other words, I don't think we lower-end protestants will be communing in RC churches any time soon...).
[ 23. April 2013, 09:35: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Leorning Cniht said quote:
Well, it's a statement of faith, of course. I don't know that the bread becomes the body in the same way that I know that Monday follows Sunday, or that David Cameron is the Prime Minister, but I know it in the same sense as I know that Jesus Christ is alive.
"things acquire great importance within a community" sounds like a symbol. I believe the Eucharist is more than that.
If it's a statement of faith, would you be prepared to say that you regard the bread as the body of Christ, or would that be to put it too weakly?
Symbol, sign and sacrament - people sometimes like to make distinctions between them. I think it was Coleridge who said a sacrament is a sign that 'participates in the reality it helps to render intelligible.'
I've heard national flags used as comparisons. A flag is like a sacrament in that it doesn't just stand for the country and people's loyalty and so on, it also gets caught up in these things, and is shown respect in itself. On the other hand, without the flag, the country is still there, and you can still love and serve it, so the flag is less than bread and wine, without which there is no eucharist.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't think you can escape the variations of belief, Eutychus.
Perhaps not, but what this thread has taught me so far is that the notion of 'sacrament' seems to be derived entirely from various groups' tradition and corporate beliefs rather than directly from Scripture (including evangelical groups).
I'm not sure this is entirely fair. The thrust of your question lended itself to this kind of answer didn't it? As it was effectively 'what do you understand by the word sacrament', so it's not surprising that people went to their tradition first without going via the what they felt the scriptural grounds for their belief were.
quote:
Chris Stiles' "speech acts to which Christ has attached his promise" sounds like a great idea to me but there's hardly a chapter and verse to go with that, is there?
Well, that was a summary. I'm happy to start to go into verses if that's where you want to go. (starting with 1 Pet 3v18-22, 1 Cor 10v1-5 for baptism and 1 Cor 11v23 onwards for communion).
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
The key points of (Roman) Catholic doctrine are as follows: A sacrament is
- a (ceremonial) sign of a sacred thing;
- a visible (outer) form of an invisible (inner) grace; and
- instituted by God with the power to sanctify.
The chief errors in the (Roman) Catholic view are that the sacraments do not
- contain in themselves the grace they signify;
- confer this grace effectively on those who place no obstacle to them;
- confer this grace causally "ex opere operato" (by virtue of the action, i.e., regardless of the state of minister or recipient); and
- present a means for obtaining grace beyond just faith in God.
To avoid confusion over point 2 vs. 3: God always puts the grace in the sacrament, but if the recipient is ill disposed this grace will be wasted on him. Note that point 3 is what sets sacraments apart from sacramentals (the latter cause grace "ex opere operantis", by virtue of the actors).
The overall picture is quite simple then. Consider a sacrament as you would consider a pill or other medical treatment, except that this healing efficacy for the soul (this grace) is not physically assigned through nature but through the institution by Christ. The specific association of a particular grace to a sacramental matter and form is not random but conditioned by salvation history, so that in baptism we wash away the sins etc. This is alike to a medical treatment not having random effects but acting on specific physiological systems. Furthermore, as long as it is done correctly, a good medical treatment will work. It has true power in what it is itself, it is not relying merely on a "placebo" effect in the doctor and patient. This is the "ex opere operato" bit. However, of course if the patient is for some reason physiologically incapable of responding to the treatment, it will be wasted (if the patient vomits up the pill, it cannot act on him).
The significant difference to Protestant conceptions is that (Roman) Catholic sacraments are Divine means as such. While they do rely on a human minister to make them come into being, and on a human recipient to make them come to an efficacious end, and can fail through both of them (the minister acts incorrectly, the recipient is ill disposed), it is God who fills the act, matter and form of the sacrament with grace as they are. For example, once the host is consecrated (by an actual priest with the right rite intending to bring about this consecration), it simply is the body of Christ. At that point, it matters not what either priest or recipient think about that. It is then not the interaction of the beliefs that is "really happening" there. It is not something in the mind and spirit of the minister or recipient only. It is a reality independent of both. Of course, the whole point of that reality is the spiritual lives of minister and recipient. Nevertheless, that reality cannot be reduced to that function. It has proper being.
The difference to magic - the magic of stories not the magic of tricksters - is simply that no power is assumed either in the minister or in the rite as such. The minister does not have some intrinsic sacramental power that he could direct into some other means of salvation. The rite performed prior to the institution by Christ would have done nothing (or at most would have acted as a sacramental, i.e., granted grace through God honouring the pious intentions of the actors). Likewise, if we could imagine God withdrawing His promise, then the sacraments would cease to be channels of grace. Rather a sacrament is based on a Divine promise, it is a specified way for a minister to call on God's grace for the benefits of his flock (and of himself). As far as the action of the sacrament itself is concerned, a comparison to magic is quite fair though. But that's precisely because we imagine magic to be something like the pragmatic technological and medical means that we use everyday, just "beyond regular nature". And sacraments are indeed such a supernatural means, given to the Church for the salvation of mankind.
[ 23. April 2013, 10:55: Message edited by: IngoB ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I've heard national flags used as comparisons. A flag is like a sacrament in that it doesn't just stand for the country and people's loyalty and so on, it also gets caught up in these things, and is shown respect in itself. On the other hand, without the flag, the country is still there, and you can still love and serve it, so the flag is less than bread and wine, without which there is no eucharist.
A country's flag (even the US flag, which is shown more reverence than those of most other countries) is exactly a symbol. Lots of people are picky about not letting it touch the ground, keeping it lit at night and so on because of what they believe the flag represents, but the flag is still no more than a few square feet of cloth.
The bread is the Body of Christ, in some mysterious way which is beyond my understanding. It's not just representational or symbolic. Nothing man-made can replicate that, because we're not God. I'm sure IngoB will give you a paragraph or two about accidents and substance, Aristotle and Aquinas and ontological change, and whilst I don't feel the need to try to explain what God does in those terms, I wouldn't say that the explanation that he would give is wrong.
quote:
If it's a statement of faith, would you be prepared to say that you regard the bread as the body of Christ, or would that be to put it too weakly?
Too weak. That language leaves open an act of mere symbolism. Just like I wouldn't say "I regard Jesus Christ as alive" because it's too weak a statement.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I don't think you can escape the variations of belief, Eutychus.
Perhaps not, but what this thread has taught me so far is that the notion of 'sacrament' seems to be derived entirely from various groups' tradition and corporate beliefs rather than directly from Scripture (including evangelical groups).
No. As with pretty much everything. It derives from the way our tradition interprets Scripture. Each of the various alternatives we've seen are based on Scripture-- but the various traditions interpret the passages differently. Perhaps I set us up badly by reframing the question to one of "traditions", which focuses on our differences. But there is much we can agree on as well.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I like the idea of creation as God-bearing, and that in Christ God has entered creation in a new and dynamic way. The eucharist clearly focuses this, but if we understand sacraments in terms of the presence of God and the risen Christ, then we are directed, I think, far beyond the obvious places. The Holy of Holies is irreversibly opened by the death of Christ, and the risen Christ may be met anywhere. It seems odd to me to assert the presence of Christ in the bread and wine. We can celebrate his presence at the table, but the careful precision of a high sacramentalism seem to me to suggest that he is only here, and only when it is 'done' correctly. The stories of the resurrection say he may be found anywhere.
I was at a Baptism recently where the priest asked if the water was holy or not. He said it wasn't. Then, when he had led us in prayer over it, he said that now, though it looked the same, it was holy. I can sort of make sense of sacramental ideas like this one, by thinking about the understanding and intention of the people who believe these things, and the role they play in the common rituals, but focusing on the water, the stuff, in this quasi-scientific manner just seems to me unhelpful.
I also wonder how far sacramentalism is a power game, reinforcing the role of the priesthood.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I also wonder how far sacramentalism is a power game, reinforcing the role of the priesthood.
Wouldn't have thought so.
Belief in sacraments is compatible with belief in the priesthood of all believers. You just have a lot more administrators. We've just got a different understanding of hierarchy.
But I think there might be a connection between beliefs on our side. Our generally informal approach to sacraments and our reformist ancestors' desire to get away from "show", seeing it as an encouragement to idolatry, might well be connected. They were a plain and simple lot.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It seems odd to me to assert the presence of Christ in the bread and wine. We can celebrate his presence at the table, but the careful precision of a high sacramentalism seem to me to suggest that he is only here, and only when it is 'done' correctly.
I don't think anyone thinks that. Wherever two or more gather in His name, there Christ is. Wherever the Word is proclaimed, there Christ is. But his presence in the Eucharist is of a greater nature - there he is fully and entirely present, body and blood, Man and God.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The significant difference to Protestant conceptions is that (Roman) Catholic sacraments are Divine means as such
Not all Protestants would disagree with those rules.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62, in reference to the Reformers :
They were a plain and simple lot.
Anyone who, like me, has labored through a work of Calvinist systematics may join me in a hearty guffaw at that thought.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Fair enough. But 'twas an exchange between Baptists; we're a subset of the reform. Doubly wrong if you like.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
I belong to a tradition which rejects the idea of sacraments completely and believes in two ordinances - baptism and the Lord's Supper.
For those who believe in sacramentalism, there are problems with both an ex opere operato and an ex opere operantis approach.
At a practical level, I suspect that the former belief might possibly have influenced RC authorities to desperately hold on to even the most unsuitable priests at a time of plummetting numbers.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Russian Orthodox see creation as a sacrament.
Um, Bart isn't a Russian Orthodox (do you know what the Ecumenical Patriarchate is?). Nor does what he say automatically become the belief of all Russian Orthodox Christians. Your quip grossly overstates what your link says.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
For those who believe in sacramentalism, there are problems with both an ex opere operato and an ex opere operantis approach.
I don't believe in sacramentalism; I am a sacramentalist by nature. I'm really not interested in the theory. I only care that it works for me.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I belong to a tradition which rejects the idea of sacraments completely. . .
And I belong to a tradition that accepts that all of life can be lived sacramentally. Grace is conferred by God by and through God's wisdom. We can't summon it up through ritual, nor can we accurately discern who has been given Grace (and to what degree) by simply looking at an outward sign or at someone's observance (sincere or not) of a pre-arranged ritual.
sabine
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
