The Sacrament Thread

[James1982]

Hello,

I am just pondering today the differences between many denominations’ definition of what a Sacrament is and the difference in Sacraments between churches. I am hoping I can appeal to the community for clarification on some things.

1. What is your definition of a Sacrament?
2. What are the Sacraments in your church and how do they track back to your definition of what a Sacrament is?

I’m just looking for an affirmative explanation of what your Church believes about the Sacraments, more than anything. This includes any denomination, not just Catholic-focused.

Thanks!

 

[dosdog]

Hello,

I am just pondering today the differences between many denominations’ definition of what a Sacrament is and the difference in Sacraments between churches. I am hoping I can appeal to the community for clarification on some things.

1. What is your definition of a Sacrament?
2. What are the Sacraments in your church and how do they track back to your definition of what a Sacrament is?

I’m just looking for an affirmative explanation of what your Church believes about the Sacraments, more than anything. This includes any denomination, not just Catholic-focused.

Thanks!

THESE ARE THE SACRAMENTS
as described by Fulton J. SHEEN
ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/SACRAMEN.TXT

in 1920, Sheen went to the prestigious Louvain University in Belgium. Here he earned a Ph.D. in philosophy with the highest distinction and was invited to try for a “super doctorate,” the agrege en Philosophie. He was the first American ever to receive such an offer. Sheen earned the honor in 1925, again passing with the highest distinction. He transformed his dissertation into a prize-winning book and won the respect and admiration of G. K. Chesterton, among others.

Smarter than any Protastant who ever lived or will ever live- Including Luther - Nuff Said

 

[Publisher]

Following is one of the best statements concerning what Friends believe about “outward forms”…IMO anyway

We do not reject the spiritual realities toward which sacraments point. We recognize baptism as the transformation of life through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We recognize communion as the presence of Jesus Christ in our corporate worship. We recognize ordination as the diverse giftedness for ministry of all people. We recognize these things, and rejoice in them, but we do not believe that the church should seek to initiate them through ritual means.

Without getting too deep into theology, it is important to bring in here the fact that our understanding of the nature of the church is based on a realized eschatology of the new covenant. The old system has passed away, and Christ is present among us to lead us into an experience of the kingdom, here and now. Therefore, we reject all interim structures of authority, and seek in all ways to be obedient to the immediate leadership of Christ. As the Friends in Lausanne stated, “We believe that a corporate practice of the presence of God, a corporate knowledge of Christ in our midst, a common experience of the work of the living Spirit, constitute the supremely real sacrament of a Holy Communion.” (Nuhn p. 20)

Reflection on what Quakers bring to the ecumenical table
Massachusetts Council of Churches
Board of Directors
December 11, 2003

 

[Tomster]

Hello,

I am just pondering today the differences between many denominations’ definition of what a Sacrament is and the difference in Sacraments between churches. I am hoping I can appeal to the community for clarification on some things.

1. What is your definition of a Sacrament?
2. What are the Sacraments in your church and how do they track back to your definition of what a Sacrament is?

I’m just looking for an affirmative explanation of what your Church believes about the Sacraments, more than anything. This includes any denomination, not just Catholic-focused.

Thanks!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=232527

You are welcome to join in.

 

[rpp]

This is an excellent question. I particularly appreciated the charitable way in which it was asked.

The standard Catholic definition of a sacrament is this.

A sacrament is an outward sign, instituted by Christ, to convey an inward, spiritual grace through Christ.

The Church recognizes seven sacraments.

Baptism
Confirmation
Confession (aka: Reconciliation, Penance)
Holy Eucharist
Marriage (aka Holy Matrimony)
Holy Orders (Ordination)
Last Rites (aka, Extreme Unction, Anointing of the Sick)

Of these, Baptism, Confirmation and Holy Orders are said to leave an “indelible mark” on the soul and, therefore, can never be repeated nor “repealed”.

Matrimony is the only sacrament not administered by a priest, rather the couple administers the sacrament upon each other.

In extreme circumstances (imminent death), any person, even a non-Christian, can baptize another person provided they use the correct form.

I believe that Extreme Unction can be administered more than once, but should be reserved for only those whose life is in jeopardy.

I am sure someone with a little more time will be able to provide Scriptural support for each of these sacraments.

And James, welcome to CAF.

 

[bengal_fan]

1. a visible sign of invisible grace.
2. baptism, communion, confirmation, ordainment, matrimony, anointing of the sick.

i am presbyterian and not all in my denomination would agree with me on this, but many would. the ones all presbyterians would agree on are: baptism, communion, ordainment, matrimony.

 

[peary]

Hello,

I am just pondering today the differences between many denominations’ definition of what a Sacrament is and the difference in Sacraments between churches. I am hoping I can appeal to the community for clarification on some things.

1. What is your definition of a Sacrament?
2. What are the Sacraments in your church and how do they track back to your definition of what a Sacrament is?

I’m just looking for an affirmative explanation of what your Church believes about the Sacraments, more than anything. This includes any denomination, not just Catholic-focused.

Thanks!

Peter Kreeft writes:

To Protestants, sacraments must be one of two things: either mere symbols, reminders, like words; or else real magic. And the Catholic definition of a sacrament — a visible sign instituted by Christ to give grace, a sign that really effects what it symbolizes — sounds like magic. Catholic doctrine teaches that the sacraments work ex opere operato, i.e., objectively, though not impersonally and automatically like machines. They are gifts that come from without but must be freely received.

Protestants are usually much more comfortable with a merely symbolic view of sacraments, for their faith is primarily verbal, not sacramental. After all, it is the Bible that looms so large in the center of their horizon. They believe in creation and Incarnation and Resurrection only because they are in the Bible. The material events are surrounded by the holy words. The Catholic sensibility is the inside-out version of this: the words are surrounded by the holy facts. To the Catholic sensibility it is not primarily words but matter that is holy because God created it, incarnated himself in it, raised it from death, and took it to heaven with him in his ascension.

Most Protestants believe the Eucharist only symbolizes Christ, though some, following Calvin, add that it is an occasion for special grace, a sign and a seal.

The basic objection Protestants have to sacramentalism is this: How can divine grace depend on matter, something passive and unfree? Isn’t it unfair for God’s grace to depend on anything other than his will and mine? I felt that objection strongly until I realized that the sheer fact that I have a body — this body, with this heredity, which came to me and still comes to me without my choice — is also “unfair”. One gets a healthy body, another does not. As one philosopher said, “Life isn’t fair.”

 

[bengal_fan]

Peter Kreeft writes:

To Protestants, sacraments must be one of two things: either mere symbols, reminders, like words; or else real magic. And the Catholic definition of a sacrament — a visible sign instituted by Christ to give grace, a sign that really effects what it symbolizes — sounds like magic. Catholic doctrine teaches that the sacraments work ex opere operato, i.e., objectively, though not impersonally and automatically like machines. They are gifts that come from without but must be freely received.

Protestants are usually much more comfortable with a merely symbolic view of sacraments, for their faith is primarily verbal, not sacramental. After all, it is the Bible that looms so large in the center of their horizon. They believe in creation and Incarnation and Resurrection only because they are in the Bible. The material events are surrounded by the holy words. The Catholic sensibility is the inside-out version of this: the words are surrounded by the holy facts. To the Catholic sensibility it is not primarily words but matter that is holy because God created it, incarnated himself in it, raised it from death, and took it to heaven with him in his ascension.

Most Protestants believe the Eucharist only symbolizes Christ, though some, following Calvin, add that it is an occasion for special grace, a sign and a seal.

The basic objection Protestants have to sacramentalism is this: How can divine grace depend on matter, something passive and unfree? Isn’t it unfair for God’s grace to depend on anything other than his will and mine? I felt that objection strongly until I realized that the sheer fact that I have a body — this body, with this heredity, which came to me and still comes to me without my choice — is also “unfair”. One gets a healthy body, another does not. As one philosopher said, “Life isn’t fair.”

i think you are confusing the view of one of the reformers (zwingli) with the views of the rest. both calvin and luther believed in the nature of the sacraments (that they impart grace). both taught some form of the “real presence” in communion. both taught baptism and matrimony as well as ordination as sacraments. zwingli was the one who pushed the mere symbol thinking. the anabaptists grew out of his teachings but even he thought them wrong for denying the validity of infant baptism. the majority of protestant denominations (world wide) view sacraments as imparting grace. it are those that came out of the zwingli school of thought (baptists, quakers, mennonites, etc.) that say they are just symbols.

luther and calvin basically said that if it doesn’t contradict the bible, it is okay. zwingli said if it’s not IN the bible, it is not okay. but, again, even he acknowledged the validity of infant baptisms.

 

[James1982]

I suppose I should put my own two cents in, having started this… Pasted from my church’s “This We Believe” document(edited by myself, ever so slightly):

We believe that God bestows all spiritual blessings upon sinners by special means established by him. These are the means of grace, the gospel in Word and sacraments. We define a sacrament as a sacred act established by Christ in which the Word connected with an earthly element gives the forgiveness of sins.

We believe that also through the Sacrament of Baptism the Holy Spirit applies the gospel to sinners, giving them new life (Titus 3:5) and cleansing them from all sin (Acts 2:38). The Lord points to the blessing of Baptism when he promises, “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved” (Mark 16:16). We believe that the blessing of Baptism is meant for all people (Matthew 28:19), including infants. Infants are born sinful (John 3:6) and therefore need to be born again, that is, to be brought to faith, through Baptism (John 3:5).
4. We believe that all who join in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper receive the true body and blood of Christ in, with, and under the bread and wine (1 Corinthians 10:16). This is true because, when the Lord instituted this sacrament, he said, “This is my body. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins” (Matthew 26:26,28). We believe that Christ’s words of institution cause the real presence–not any human action. As believers receive his body and blood, they also receive the forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:28) and the comfort and assurance that they are truly his own. Unbelievers also receive Christ’s body and blood, but to their judgment (1 Corinthians 11:29).
5. We believe that the Lord gave his Word and the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper for a purpose. He commanded his followers, “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19,20). Through God’s Word and sacraments he preserves and extends the holy Christian church throughout the world. Believers should therefore be diligent and faithful in the use of these divinely established means of grace for themselves and in their mission outreach to others. These are the only means through which immortal souls are brought to faith and to life in heaven.

1. We reject all teachings that the Sacrament of the Altar offers nothing more than signs and symbols of Jesus’ sacrifice, thereby denying that Christ’s true body and blood are received in the Lord’s Supper. We reject the view that those who eat the body of Christ in the sacrament merely receive Christ spiritually by faith. We reject the claim that unbelievers and hypocrites do not receive the true body and blood of Jesus in the Sacrament.
2. We reject the doctrine of transubstantiation, which teaches that the substance of the bread and wine are changed entirely into the body and blood of Christ. Scripture teaches that all communicants receive both the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ (1 Corinthians 10:16).
3. We reject any attempt to set the precise moment within the celebration of the Lord’s Supper when the body and blood of Christ become present. We therefore reject the view that one must believe that Christ’s body and blood are present as soon as the words of consecration have been spoken and the view that one must believe that Christ’s body and blood become present only at the moment of eating and drinking.

Looks like only two sacraments are recognized, which seems to jive with most protestant denominations. I’m not as learned as many people on this board about religious matters (though I am trying), so I am genuinely curious about how there are 2 sacraments for many denominations and 7 for Catholics. What about the other 5 aren’t sacramental?

FWIW, I’m still trying to figure out how I Cor 10:16 directly refutes transubstantiation. I’m going to have to ask the pastor about that one, I think.