Conversation Among Friends - Sacraments - Comments

out of pocket

Jonathan — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:24:39 -0500

am in Germany. also, somehow I missed parts 1 and 2. will catch up on this thread sometime soon.

jdm

Third: Sacrament Controversy

Joey — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 08:44:40 -0500

JM,

I decided to stop the theology and grab the controversy from the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia section on Sacraments. This is a good read and not too long.

Here is a section that cuts to the chase but is surely intended to be read in the context of the whole article.

You will see a couple of things that I think are worth considering.

1) The Catholic Doctrine finds all sacraments within scripture.

2) The Catholic Doctrine relies on tradition (also a scriptural principle) to affrim the nature of the sacramental rite and function.

3) The Catholic Doctrine of the sacraments is more helpful to man as it provides a means to obtain grace apart from a particular level of faith or fidelity. There is more mercy.

Respectfully, js

P.S. I would suggest that we post on the subject of baptism as an example sacrament that is easy to discuss and for which we have some commonality.

*******************************************

(2) Errors of Protestants

Protestants generally hold that the sacraments are signs of something sacred (grace and faith), but deny that they really cause Divine grace. Episcopalians, however, and Anglicans, especially the Ritualists, hold with Catholics that the sacraments are "effectual signs" of grace. In article XXV of the Westminster Confession we read:

Sacraments ordained of God be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace and God's good will towards us by which He doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken but strengthen and confirm our faith in Him (cf. art. XXVII).

"The Zwinglian theory", writes Morgan Dix (op.cit., p.73), "that sacraments are nothing but memorials of Christ and badges of Christian profession, is one that can by no possible jugglery with the English tongue be reconciled with the formularies of our church." Mortimer adopts and explains the Catholic formula "ex opere operato" (loc. cit., p. 122). Luther and his early followers rejected this conception of the sacraments. They do not cause grace, but are merely "signs and testimonies of God's good will towards us" (Augsburg Confessions); they excite faith, and faith (fiduciary) causes justification. Calvinists and Presbyterians hold substantially the same doctrine. Zwinglius lowered still further the dignity of the sacraments, making them signs not of God's fidelity but of our fidelity. By receiving the sacraments we manifest faith in Christ: they are merely the badges of our profession and the pledges of our fidelity. Fundamentally all these errors arise from Luther's newly-invented theory of righteousness, i.e. the doctrine of justification by faith alone (see GRACE). If man is to be sanctified not by an interior renovation through grace which will blot out his sins, but by an extrinsic imputation through the merits of Christ, which will cover his soul as a cloak, there is no place for signs that cause grace, and those used can have no other purpose than to excite faith in the Saviour. Luther's convenient doctrine on justification was not adopted by all his followers and it is not baldly and boldly proclaimed by all Protestants today; nevertheless they accept its consequences affecting the true notion of the sacraments.

(3) Catholic Doctrine

Against all innovators the Council of Trent declared: "If anyone say that the sacraments of the New Law do not contain the grace which they signify, or that they do not confer grace on those who place no obstacle to the same, let him be anathema" (Sess. viii, can.vi). "If anyone say that grace is not conferred by the sacraments ex opere operato but that faith in God's promises is alone sufficient for obtaining grace, let him be anathema" (ibid., can. viii; cf. can.iv, v, vii). The phrase "ex opere operato", for which there is no equivalent in English, probably was used for the first time by Peter of Poitiers (D. 1205), and afterwards by Innocent III (d. 1216; de myst. missae, III, v), and by St. Thomas (d. 1274; IV Sent., dist. 1, Q.i, a.5). It was happily invented to express a truth that had always been taught and had been introduced without objection. It is not an elegant formula but, as St. Augustine remarks (In Ps. cxxxviii): It is better that grammarians should object than that the people should not understand. "Ex opere operato", i.e. by virtue of the action, means that the efficacy of the action of the sacraments does not depend on anything human, but solely on the will of God as expressed by Christ's institution and promise. "Ex opere operantis", i.e. by reason of the agent, would mean that the action of the sacraments depended on the worthiness either of the minister or of the recipient (see Pourrat, "Theology of the Sacraments", tr. St. Louis, 1910, 162 sqq.). Protestants cannot in good faith object to the phrase as if it meant that the mere outward ceremony, apart from God's action, causes grace. It is well known that Catholics teach that the sacraments are only the instrumental, not the principal, causes of grace. Neither can it be claimed that the phrase adopted by the council does away with all dispositions necessary on the part of the recipient, the sacraments acting like infallible charms causing grace in those who are ill-disposed or in grievous sin. The fathers of the council were careful to note that there must be no obstacle to grace on the part of the recipients, who must receive them rite, i.e. rightly and worthily; and they declare it a calumny to assert that they require no previous dispositions (Sess. XIV, de poenit., cap.4). Dispositions are required to prepare the subject, but they are a condition (conditio sine qua non), not the causes, of the grace conferred. In this case the sacraments differ from the sacramentals, which may cause grace ex opere operantis, i.e. by reason of the prayers of the Church or the good, pious sentiments of those who use them.

(4) Proofs of the Catholic Doctrine

In examining proofs of the Catholic doctrine it must be borne in mind that our rule of faith is not simply Scripture, but Scripture and tradition.

(a) In Sacred Scripture we find expressions which clearly indicate that the sacraments are more than mere signs of grace and faith: "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God" (John 3:5); "He saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost" (Titus 3:5); "Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost" (Acts 8:17); "He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life . . . For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55-56). These and similar expressions (see articles on each sacrament) are, to say the least, very much exaggerated if they do not mean that the sacramental ceremony is in some sense the cause of the grace conferred.

(b) Tradition clearly indicates the sense in which they have been interpreted in the Church. From the numerous expressions used by the Fathers we select the following: "The Holy Ghost comes down from heaven and hovers over the waters, sanctifying them of Himself, and thus they imbibe the power of sanctifying" (Tertullian, De bapt., c. iv). "Baptism is the expiation of sins, the remission of crimes, the cause of renovation and regeneration" (St. Gregory of Nyssa, "Orat. in Bapt."). "Explain to me the manner of nativity in the flesh and I will explain to you the regeneration of the soul . . . Throughout, by Divine power and efficacy, it is incomprehensible; no reasoning, no art can explain it" (ibid.) "He that passes through the fountain [Baptism] shall not die but rises to new life" (St. Ambrose, De sacr., I, iv). "Whence this great power of water", exclaims St. Augustine, "that it touches the body and cleanses the soul?" (Tr. 80 in Joann). "Baptism", writes the same Father, "consists not in the merits of those by whom it is administered, nor of those to whom it is administered, but in its own sanctity and truth, on account of Him who instituted it" (Cont. Cres., IV). The doctrine solemnly defined by the Council of Trent had been announced in previous councils, notably at Constantinople (381; Symb. Fid.), at Mileve (416; can.ii) in the Second Council of Orange (529; can. xy); and in the Council of Florence (1439; Decr. pro. Armen., see Denzinger-Bannwart, nn. 86, 102, 200, 695). The early Anglican Church held fast to the true doctrine: "Baptism is not only a sign of profession and a mark of difference, whereby christened men are discerned from those that be not christened, but is also a sign of regeneration or New-Birth, whereby as by an instrument they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the church" (Art. XXVII).

(c) Theological argument. -- The Westminster Confession adds: "The Baptism of children is in any wise to be retained in the church as most agreeable with the institution of Christ". If Baptism does not confer grace ex opere operato, but simply excites faith, then we ask: (1) Of what use would this be if the language used be not understood by the recipient, i.e. an infant or an adult that does not understand Latin? In such cases it might be more beneficial to the bystanders than to the one baptized. (2) In what does the Baptism of Christ surpass the Baptism of John, for the latter could excite faith? Why were those baptized by the Baptism of John rebaptized with the Baptism of Christ? (Acts 19). (3) How can it be said that Baptism is strictly necessary for salvation since faith can be excited and expressed in many other ways? Finally Episcopalians and Anglicans of today would not revert to the doctrine of grace ex opere operato unless they were convinced that the ancient faith was warranted by Scripture and Tradition.

Second: Nature of Sacrament

Joey — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 06:40:52 -0500

JM,

By way of defining a sacrament Abbot Vonier describes some characteristics of a sacrament and some dangers in limiting their scope.

Much confusion of thought in the doctrine of the sacraments in general, and of the Eucharist in particular, would be spared us if we never let go of that elemental definition of the sacrament, that it is a sign. Baptism, for instance, is not just any kind of cleansing of the soul; its cleansing power is in the burial and resurrection of Christ which is signified in the sacramental rite.

"Know you not that all we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in His death? For we are buried together with Him by baptism into death: that, as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall also in the likeness of His resurrection."

Every sacrament, then, has something to declare: it recalls the past, it is the voice of the present, it reveals the future. If the sacrament did not fulfill its function of sign proclaiming something which is not seen, it would not be a sacrament at all. It can embrace heaven and earth, time and eternity, because it is a sign; were it only a grace it would be no more than the gift of the present hour; but being a sign the whole history of the spiritual world is reflected in it: "For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until He come."

The sacramental signs have become, in God's Providence, a distinct supernatural world, as real as the supernatural world of graces given to the souls of men. At the same time, those sacred signs (e.g., baptism with water and words) differ radically from the acts of man's soul performed under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. They are visible, palpable realities, not the breathings of the Spirit in the hearts of men. They are not mere aids to man's memory; they are not just oppertune reminders of the invisible.

The sacraments are signs of God's action; they are perfect signs because they contain and they bring about the very thing they signify.

The sacraments of the Old Law had no power in themselves by which they might have brought about the bestowal of justifing grace, but they only signified that faith through which men were justified. Sacraments under the New Law not only contain grace, they cause it. The sacraments are instruments of God and they may be truely called containers of grace.

(OK, maybe one more post and I'll finish the basic definition)

First: Charity, faith, and sacrament

Joey — Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:50:37 -0500

JM,

Before we get to the definiton of a sacrament, let me put it in perspective based on some thoughts from a German theologian, Abbot Vonier.

Incorporation into Christ, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, has a threefold degree; the first is through faith, the second is through the charity of this life, the third is through the possession of heaven. It is true that the whole tendency of faith is towards charity, that ultimately faith without charity cannot save us; nonetheless, charity cannot exist in man without faith, while there may be true faith in man without actual charity.

All this goes to demonstrate that there is in faith an instrumental power, enabling man to open the door that leads to perfect union with Christ. We cannot speak of such instrumental power in charity, for charity is not a means towards the possession of God; it is, on the contrary, actual possession of God.

Thus, let it be emphasized that through the possession of charity we do not only contact Christ, we are actually in Christ. Charity is not an instrument, while faith has primarily an instrumental role.

Finally, then, the sacraments are also instruments for obtaining that union with Christ in charity. The sacraments complete and render more efficacious that instrumentality of faith, but they make it more real, if possible, and certainly more infallible in effect. So, both faith and sacraments have that power of divine instrumentality which open to man the treasure-house of Christ's redemption.

The first of these, also practiced by the CofC, is the sacrament of Baptism. Certainly, through Baptism much grace is instrumeted to man.

As to application, Aquinas proposes that there are four seasons of man's history -- the state of innocence before the fall, the state of sin before Christ, the state of sin after Christ, and the state of bliss in heaven. No sacraments are necessary in the first and in the last state; sacraments are necessary to man in the two middle states. But it is in the "state of sin after Christ" that sacraments reach their perfection; the seven sacraments of the Christian dispensation are sacraments in the highest sense, because, besides signifing the grace which is the inheritance of faith, they also contain that grace and cause it. (Old testament sacraments (e.g., sacrifice, were tremendous helps to the faith, although in themselves they were not direct causes of grace)

I will define a sacrament in my next post. May I suggest that you let me form the definition in a few posts so that a picture can be painted.

(Much of the above is taken from Vonier's book, "A key to the doctrine of the Eucharist". It is not my own except for rearranging some arguments.)

Colbert

Joey — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 16:43:39 -0500

Yeow-ouch, Colbert is brutal at best.

However, I guess one must ask (at this point in history) what it is that protestants are actually protesting?

Colbert on Protestantism

Jonathan — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 17:47:55 -0500

Stephen Colbert on Protestantism: link

definition

Jonathan — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:57:12 -0500

sure, why not...

but first define sacraments

of course, I have an idea what it is and could easily consult wikipedia...

but "sacraments" is not part of the standard coC vocab

Sacraments

Joey — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 08:49:54 -0500

JM & PM,

I have been reading a book written by a theologian. (I know, augh, it's pretty good anyway.)

The author points out that one gap between Protestants and Catholics is the concept of a sacrament.

What do you think about a discussion thread on the theology of the sacraments? (This done in the spirit of unity among Christians.)