Sacraments: Schism: 7 loaves | Heresy: 5 loaves + 2 fish

[spauline]

Here is some ideas I’ve been perusing.

Any time Christ gives us Sanctifying Grace, he is feeding us spiritually, the pinnacle of which is the Eucharist. But, of course, the greatest forms of spiritual feeding are the Sacraments. Now, consider this, with the several big big dogmas of faith, we have one line Scriptures that dogmatically address this:

I. Original Sin (Romans “Through Adam, all have sinned”)
II. Papal Infalliblity (Matt. 16:18 “And you are ROCK…”)
III. Confession (John 20? “Whosever sins you forgive…”)
IV. **Eucharist **(“This is my Body…”)

But, I’m wondering, considering the unimaginable importance of the Sacraments, why is it that until now, the Church has to fish out the seven sacraments from the Scriptures here and there, and in which usually there is nothing explicitly stating its a Sacrament? I mean, wouldn’t it be nice that there should be some concrete, in your face simple verses that communicate the mystery of the Sacraments?

I definitely think so. The Sacraments are in no conceivable way minor realities in the Church. An entire quarter of the Catechism is focused exclusively on these miracles of grace. Catholicism without the Sacraments is no longer Catholicism. Sacraments are an intrinsic reality of unimaginable importance for the Redemption of humanity. For the Sacraments communicate the greatest of graces that God the Father wishes to mediate to us. And if that were not enough, the Sacraments not only communicate grace but their very language and form are catechetical and teaching realities of the mysteries of God, of Love, of holiness, of gift and reception, of sacrifice. And it is absolutely no minor issue in Catholicism that rifts in the ecclesial communion cause loss of grace in what concerns the separating communities that are in heresy. For to lose five sacraments is a great loss, one in which the person just barely hangs on to the supernatural life. And there is absolutely no question that the rifts in the Body of Christ caused by heresy (and here I speak most especially of the great heretical separation of the Protestant Rebellion) have had devastating implications for the efficacy of the Gospel. Indeed, Christ prayed that they may be one, in order that the world may believe, and because they have not been one, the world has indeed lost faith.

Considering the implications of this, I personally find it difficult to imagine that God would not give a clearer expression of the Seven Sacraments in Scripture other than that we need to fish them out of the text here and there. For to be certain, Scripture no where comes out and blows a trumpet explicitly, saying, “Hello, Hello, there are Seven Sacraments, and here they are with their form and matter spelled out.” But I would, on the other hand, believe that the miraculous feeding of the multitudes would be the perfect place for such a text to demonstrate the seven sacraments and also the issue of how Christian disunity will disrupt it. For if anything, Christ feeds us every time he gives us Sanctifying Grace, and, again, the Seven Sacraments are the most important way He does this.
…
continued

 

[spauline]

… continued…

So here is what i suggest:

There are two types of separation in Christ’s Body that each have implications for the Sacraments:

1.** Schism**
2. Heresy

Each of these has different consequences for the sacramental life. In merely schism (which is the general condition of the Orthodox Sees), all 7 sacraments are retained.

In heresy, 5 sacraments are lost, retaining only 2, Baptism and Marriage.

Now get this:

In 2 of the Gospels, there is a story in which Christ feeds 4,000 with 7 loaves and few fish.

In all 4 Gospels, there is the story of Jesus feeding 5,000 people with 5 loaves and 2 fish.

Now consider this: there are 5 Apostolic Sees. The Orthodox have 4 of them. But since Rome, by way of intrinsic necessity, possesses the fullness of Apostolicity, it, by way of implication, nevertheless possesses the fullness of Apostolic Tradition of all 5 sees.

In the East, the primary separation is** schism**, so that they have** 4 Apostolic Sees** and 7 sacraments .

In the West, where all 5 Apostolic fullness is retained, the primary separation has been heresy, and those separated in this only have 2 sacraments, lacking the other ***5 ***that Catholics have in addition.

Connotation:

1. The Eastern **Schism **is prefigured in the first feeding of 4,000 people with 7 loaves : the 4 “4,000”]separated Apostolic Churches in schism nevertheless have all 7 sacraments.
2. The Western Heresy is prefigured in the second feeding of 5,000 with 5 loaves and 2 fish: Catholics, who have the fullness of all 5 “5,000”] Apostolic Sees, have all 7 sacraments (5 + 2), but the heretics have only 2 of them.

For more elaboration on the 5 loaves and 2 fish, one may read this: Five Loaves and Two Fish: the Seven Sacraments.

Blessings to all!
Scott

 

[Ilroy]

… continued…

So here is what i suggest:

There are two types of separation in Christ’s Body that each have implications for the Sacraments:

1.** Schism**
2. Heresy

In heresy, 5 sacraments are lost, retaining only 2, Baptism and Marriage.

Blessings to all!
Scott

One problem with this that is immediately obvious is that some of the groups in the western heresies don’t view Baptism as a sacrement or even necessary at all…so they might have only one sacrament…sorry…

 

[TOME]

Spauline,

As I read your question a thought kept coming to mind namely you may be looking in the wrong area as your starting point. I am not saying or denying the importance of scripture as the basis of any sacrament in general or a specific sacrament, however, I think to get a better understanding you should begin to study the sacraments in light of the liturgical life of the Church.

Of coarse, at the center of the Liturgy is the Eucharist and this could help answer some of the questions concerning a scriptural basis for the sacraments and most likely this will also raise a whole lot more questions. Still, if you are going to have a fuller understanding of the sacraments the study of the liturgical life of the Church is essential.

 

[spauline]

One problem with this that is immediately obvious is that some of the groups in the western heresies don’t view Baptism as a sacrement or even necessary at all…so they might have only one sacrament…sorry…

OK, well, look, I don’t think this needs to be absolutely absolute. Of course there are exceptions. Granted, some severely evangelical sects do not use proper form and matter and do not even believe that Baptism is a Sacrament, in which case, they could only have Baptism by implicit desire. And, who knows, (don’t know what the Church says on this), if they can acquire Sanctifying grace through IMPLICIT desire for Baptism, then, perhaps, they could have marriage “by implicit desire”.

 

[spauline]

Spauline,

As I read your question a thought kept coming to mind namely you may be looking in the wrong area as your starting point. I am not saying or denying the importance of scripture as the basis of any sacrament in general or a specific sacrament, however, I think to get a better understanding you should begin to study the sacraments in light of the liturgical life of the Church.

Of coarse, at the center of the Liturgy is the Eucharist and this could help answer some of the questions concerning a scriptural basis for the sacraments and most likely this will also raise a whole lot more questions. Still, if you are going to have a fuller understanding of the sacraments the study of the liturgical life of the Church is essential.

well, of course, the ultimate basis for the sacraments come from the whole faith, especially the liturgy and Sacred Oral Tradition. what I’m rather suggesting is, wouldn’t it be nice that the WRITTEN Tradition might have something clearer to say about it?

 

[rwoehmke]

As I understand it all the seven sacraments have some sort of warrant from scripture. It first glance that may not be obvious, but It took some time for all seven to be recognized as Sacraments and for a time there were more than seven contenders. Justification or recognition in Scripture sometimes came after the fact. One must also recognize that the forms or the way the Sacraments are administered have changed and developed over time so it was not a done deal from the day/year the NT was written. Unfortunately for our “separated brethren” they have separated themselves not only from us, but a rich part of their heritage as Christians.

 

[mdcpensive1]

The sacraments come from the Word of God, which is both Oral and Written. Yes, it would be nice if God commanded that the Catechism be written, but He said “Go forth and preach”. As you know, scripture was not meant to be all inclusive. Sacraments are those actions of God that help us to receive the graces earned for us if we are properly disposed to receive them. They are the oaths that are sworn by God to make up for what is lacking in us.
mdcpensive1

 

[spauline]

The sacraments come from the Word of God, which is both Oral and Written. Yes, it would be nice if God commanded that the Catechism be written, but He said “Go forth and preach”. As you know, scripture was not meant to be all inclusive. Sacraments are those actions of God that help us to receive the graces earned for us if we are properly disposed to receive them. They are the oaths that are sworn by God to make up for what is lacking in us.
mdcpensive1

Hey, man, I KNOW that we need Oral Trad in addition to the Written Trad. Amen! I’m just saying, if there was even further and more clear evidence from just Scripture for the seven Sacraments, it would help with ecumenism. Because those Protestants are always saying, “Show me in Scripture.” If the Scriptures come even more to our defense, that that’s an added blessing. Helps more with dialogue.

 

[mdcpensive1]

Spauline, please forgive me if I sounded like you did not know about Oral and Written tradition. I knew that you did because of the higher knowledge level of your postings. The point that the person you are conversing with is similar to the Lazarus and the beggar passage in the bible. Lazarus begs that God send someone to tell his brothers about heaven and hell but God says that they have the prophets and scriptures. We have the Word of God in both Oral and Tradition as well as the Church. We have a lot to direct us. Some people just require words in a certain way and if they are not that way, they will not believe.
mdcpensive1

 

[spauline]

Spauline, please forgive me if I sounded like you did not know about Oral and Written tradition. I knew that you did because of the higher knowledge level of your postings. The point that the person you are conversing with is similar to the Lazarus and the beggar passage in the bible. Lazarus begs that God send someone to tell his brothers about heaven and hell but God says that they have the prophets and scriptures. We have the Word of God in both Oral and Tradition as well as the Church. We have a lot to direct us. Some people just require words in a certain way and if they are not that way, they will not believe.
mdcpensive1

Well, yeah, I realize that Catholicism is “enough”, and yet, on the other hand, just as a personal note, I wouldn’t fully condemn all Protestants for the fact that they have difficulty in accepting the fullness of truth, because there was a lot of clergy scandal toward end of Middle Ages. that is, I wouldn’t fully blame the modern world for its lack of faith because of the scandal of religious division and hypocrisy. I think God should give the modern world a chance of learning a lesson from their apostasy rather than condemning them permanently. I think only after the world almost comes to an end from the consequences of its errors will it then no longer have an excuse if it falls away again. I don’t mean to say you were implying this, but your comment seemed to suggest the idea that modern man, including Protestants, has “no excuse whatsoever” for the either partial or total rejection of the truth.

maybe you could clarify what you mean in that?

Blessings to you, mdcpensive!

 

[mdcpensive1]

Spauline it is good to hear from you and I do want to clarify anything that needs clarification.
I am glad you believe that it is not correct to condemn all protestants for not believing in the One True Church. The Church talks about invincible ignorance of faith is not to be held against anyone who does not know the fullness of the truth. Here we agree.
It is also true about clergy scandals in the middle ages, but a lot of it was localized. For example, Spain did not have the problems that Germany had. This was an example that shows how catechisis was lacking in the Church which should have taught the Church is about Christ and not the human members. The Church is Holy because of Christ. Until the end, there will always be wheat and weeds in the Church that have been sown together. The Church is to continue to grow in holiness by the process of cleansing itself of the sinfulness of its members, both priests and lay. Sometimes it is tough to see the cleansing going on.
I look back to the Old Testament and the tower of babel where the people wanted to make a name for themselves and to separate from the rest of the world. What happened is that many languages came about which confused them. I see the same here with the many versions of what people see as church. It is confusing with “eclesial communities” believing many different things to know what truth is. I just feel that I have been blessed with the grace of faith and the grace to pursue the truth and stand up for what I believe. But this means that because of this grace, God asks more of me and I pray that I can be up to that task with your prayers.

mdcpensive1