Seven Sacraments?

Since things are not numbered together unless they belong in the same category or possess certain shared characteristics, the theological basis of the claim that there are seven and only seven “sacraments” can only be understood if we know what is being signified by that term. My pre-Orthodox perception was that if “sacrament” in the RC tradition and “Holy Mystery” in Orthodoxy were completely synonymous terms, then the claim that there were only seven such “mystical” acts within the Church plainly contradicted Scripture and Holy Tradition; for this reason I was comforted by the fact that Fr. Thomas Hopko was in agreement with this observation:

The practice of counting the sacraments was adopted in the Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholics. It is not an ancient practice of the Church and, in many ways, it tends to be misleading since it appears that there are just seven specific rites which are “sacraments” and that all other aspects of the life of the Church are essentially different from these particular actions. The more ancient and traditional practice of the Orthodox Church is to consider everything which is in and of the Church as sacramental or mystical.

The Church may be defined as the new life in Christ. It is man’s life lived by the Holy Spirit in union with God. All aspects of the new life of the Church participate in the mystery of salvation. In Christ and the Holy Spirit everything which is sinful and dead becomes holy and alive by the power of God the Father. And so in Christ and the Holy Spirit everything in the Church becomes a sacrament, an element of the mystery of the Kingdom of God as it is already being experienced in the life of this world. (The Orthodox Faith, emphasis added)

The definition of sacrament presupposed by the claim that there are only seven is explicated in the Catechism of the Council of Trent:

In order, therefore, to explain more fully the nature of a Sacrament, it should be taught that it is a sensible object which possesses, by divine institution, the power not only of signifying, but also of accomplishing holiness and righteousness. Hence it follows, as everyone can easily see, that the images of the Saints, crosses and the like, although signs of sacred things, cannot be called Sacraments. That such is the nature of a Sacrament is easily proved by the example of all the Sacraments, if we apply to the others what has been already said of Baptism; namely, that the solemn ablution of the body not only signifies, but has power to effect a sacred thing which is wrought interiorly by the operation of the Holy Ghost. (COTC, Introduction to the Sacraments)

Since only those acts that meet the defined criteria as understood within the Augustinian tradition are properly called sacraments, it makes sense that Protestants do not affirm that there are seven sacraments for (1) they possess a different understanding of grace and (2) only signify with that term practices explicitly commanded by God. Certainly the following is conclusive evidence of the fact that there is a considerable lack of correspondence between RC and Orthodox terminologies:

Reply to Objection 6. Holy Water and other consecrated things are not called sacraments, because they do not produce the sacramental effect, which is the receiving of grace.

I trust that I am not the only one who has trouble with the claim that Holy Water is graceless, but the above only confirms my main point, which is that one must be very careful appropriating theological terms from other traditions.

Sound Familiar?

“But we, persuaded by holy and blessed men, affirm that the mystery of Godliness is neither in the dignity of names, nor in the specificity of practices and sacrametnal mysteries, but rather in the exactness of teachings.”

Eunomius, NPNF  v : 238

Compare with this.

True and particular churches?

Having a discussion on another blog I am interested in getting some feedback here on the issues raised.

It comes down to the theological approach of St Augustine and that of St Cyprian, along with St Basil and other Fathers. The former has generally been the accepted approach in the West and the latter in the East.

The issues are whether there can be valid Mysteries/Sacraments outside the visible/canonical limits of the Church; whether the Holy Spirit can be active in such Mysteries outside the Church (can we separate the Holy Spirit from Christ and His Body); and whether a local Church can be considered a true Church yet deficient in something, especially not being in communion with Rome.

Does the latter point give Rome some form of Mystical/Sacramental role as well as an “administrative” role assuming for the sake of argument that such a role was instituted by Christ? If Rome does not have a Mystical role, how then can communion with it provide anything to a local Church other than separation from it making the local Church schismatic, as it would be being separated from any other local Church?

At present, I understand that the Spirit is not in the Mysteries of those outside the Church and in no way can schismatic and heretical churches be called “true and particular” having valid Mysteries. Roman Catholics and Orthodox being well established in schism, (although really both teach heresies relative to the other), if one is the Church then the other is not, with invalid Mysteries, and cannot be considered true and particular, let alone “Sister”. This seems to be in line with St Cyprian, St Basil and other Fathers that are not followers of St Augustine. Following St Augustine, it may be possible to see schismatics as true and particular Churches with a deficiency but even here there are some problems as to how lack of communion with Rome can cause a deficiency, other than the direct wording of “true and particular churches in schism”. Can both views be accepted together or are they mutually exclusive? Can theory be tied in with the practice of the Fathers of the Church?

Sure it may be nice to say that Rome is a church, or the Church, and for that to be accepted in reply but on what theological/ecclesiology is this based? St Augustine provides a framework for this but is St Augustine right? Can the Mysteries exist outside the Church? Does this question even make sense?

Although, I am sure much ink has already been spilt on this matter, I look forward to comments.

Something Light and Weird

In the mean time while I work on finishing my collective response to the ecumenical crussaders, here is something light and weird. First, I hope everyone enjoyed Pascha and is continuing to do so, since Pascha continues for some time. I know I enjoy reading, let alone participating in the Liturgies of Holy Week. The rich language stirs my devotion.

So, I am in line on Saturday evening for the Eucharist. The smell of lamb is starting to pour into the gymnasium (we have the liturgy in the gym because the church isn’t large enough to fit all of the once a year people).  Ho hum. As usual I am trying to keep my thoughts directed and under control with my eyes to the floor or something near enough. I hear in front of me people discussing what to do to partake of the Eucharist. “Say your name and then do this…” And I think to myself, “That is rather strange.” So I look up.

Platonic Signs and Sacramental Realities Pt. 2

“It is very significant indeed that virutally all controversies concerning the ‘form’ of Baptism-immersion versus spinkling, baptismal formula, et.c- were centered almost exclusively on the issue of validity and not on that of the meaning or essence. Even those, for example, who defend-and rightly so-immersion as the proper form of Baptism and denounce sprinkling as ‘heresy,’ do this on purely formal grounds: sprinkling is a deviation from the practice of the early Church, considered as an ultimate authority and norm of validity. Yet the position of those who favor and defend ’sprinkling’ stems in fact fromt he same type of reasoning [the church permitted it in extreme circumstances]…The question of essence or meaning is not raised here because both factions, in fact, agree on it and also agree that it does not depend on the question of ‘form.’

The real tradegy is that by applying the dichotomy of ‘form’ and ‘essence’ to the sacraments, and by reducing the notion of ‘form’ to that of ‘validity,’ this new sacramental theology ultimately altered and deeply impoverished the notion of ‘essence’ itself. There was apparently nothing new in defining this essence as grace, a very scriptural and traditional term indeed, which the early Church also frequently used in the explanation of the sacrments.

Platonic Signs and Sacramental Realities pt. 1

“It is as if theologians had difficulties in ‘holding together’ the various aspects of this act, as if human words and categories were not fully adequate to the totality of the baptismal mystery. There appeared a certain discrepancy between Baptism itself-its liturgy, its texts, rites and symbols-on the one hand, and the various theological explanations and definitions of Baptism on the other, between the act and its explanation, the sacrament and its comprehension…The most striking aspect of this discrepancy is the inability of modern or post-patristic theology to explain the relationship between Baptism and the Death and Resurrection of Christ…This clear affirmation [between Baptism and Pascha] did not remain central, however, when theology began to be understood and developed as a rational explanation and interpretation of the Christian faith. One continued to pay lip service to the baptismal ’sybolism’ of death and resurrection but the real meaning of the sacrament shiftwed elsewhere…

Alexander Schmemann, Of Water and the Spirit, p. 54-56