Impediments

[CelticRebel]

what is the difference?

I think the former is a sacramental meaning, but the latter is not. I think the HS works in the person, not the elements.

 

[Antony in Tx]

I think the HS works in the person, not the elements.

I think we would agree with that, but the distinction we would make is that the Holy Spirit is IN the elements and works in the individual through it's presence there.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Interested in this distinction - perhaps someone can be more precise. I'm not going to try to explain the distinction.

I have understood it as often being explained that the elements are a VEHICLE in a sense for the Grace of the Holy Spirit ...

It might be useful to keep in mind that we understand (PLEASE someone correct me if I'm wrong!!!) the grace to be of the energies of God ... the energies and the essence ARE God. The essence being the part that we can never know, as it transcends us, and the energies being how we experience God and how He works in us.

I really, REALLY don't want to go too far in this, and I may have stated it not quite correctly as it is - I had trouble getting the words to express what I understand without implying anything incorrect.

Please someone do correct me if I did too poor a job.

But yes, the physical elements are sacramental, and convey the Grace of God .... ah, let's just say that I think it's taking it too far to think that the water "becomes God" of course.

This is tricky ...

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think we would agree with that, but the distinction we would make is that the Holy Spirit is IN the elements and works in the individual through it's presence there.

I think we would say it is both. God can work in whatever He wills, if that is water, a priest, etc then that is what He uses. in fact, we would say that holy water is not some magic water, but water as it was created to be. water should be filled with the Spirit because all things should radiate God's love to man.

if we say, "He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things" (Eph 4:10), then we mean ALL things which would include the material world like water, oil, bread, wine, air, trees, all of it.

 

[Antony in Tx]

I think we would say it is both. God can work in whatever He wills, if that is water, a priest, etc then that is what He uses. in fact, we would say that holy water is not some magic water, but water as it was created to be. water should be filled with the Spirit because all things should radiate God's love to man.

if we say, "He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things" (Eph 4:10), then we mean ALL things which would include the material world like water, oil, bread, wine, air, trees, all of it.

Said so much better than I did. There's a reason you're in seminary and I am not!

 

[ArmyMatt]

Said so much better than I did. There's a reason you're in seminary and I am not!

only cause I needs some learnin'

 

[CelticRebel]

I think we would agree with that, but the distinction we would make is that the Holy Spirit is IN the elements and works in the individual through it's presence there.

I can't say that the Holy Spirit is in the elements. That's the point at which I'd disagree. I can't see how the Holy Spirit operates in inanimate objects.

 

[CelticRebel]

I think we would say it is both. God can work in whatever He wills, if that is water, a priest, etc then that is what He uses. in fact, we would say that holy water is not some magic water, but water as it was created to be. water should be filled with the Spirit because all things should radiate God's love to man.

if we say, "He who descended is also the One who ascended far above all the heavens, that He might fill all things" (Eph 4:10), then we mean ALL things which would include the material world like water, oil, bread, wine, air, trees, all of it.

That's good. You got me thinking again.

 

[Antony in Tx]

It's all His creation and therefore when in its ideal/original/unfallen state would be imbued thoroughly with His Energies. The idea that through His church, He could also imbue sacramental elements with His Presence is not a stretch at all. He did not say "This represents my Body" and "This represents my Blood". He said "This IS my Body" and "This IS my Blood", and so it is when we follow the instructions for workship given by Him to the Apostles once, for all that it literally IS His Body and Blood. We also believe that this extends to other sacramental elements.

 

[CelticRebel]

It's all His creation and therefore when in its ideal/original/unfallen state would be imbued thoroughly with His Energies. The idea that through His church, He could also imbue sacramental elements with His Presence is not a stretch at all. He did not say "This represents my Body" and "This represents my Blood". He said "This IS my Body" and "This IS my Blood", and so it is when we follow the instructions for workship given by Him to the Apostles once, for all that it literally IS His Body and Blood. We also believe that this extends to other sacramental elements.

As one who has been drawn to panentheism, I can see and agree to an extent with what you're saying. But if the Holy Spirit can operate in the elements, He doesn't need a special minister class to enable it. The Quakers say every meal can be sacramental. I like that.

One point: Jesus also said "I am the door" and "I am the vine". He used metaphors.

 

[~Anastasia~]

We pray - to God who is everywhere present and fillest all things ...

But that doesn't mean a tree or a stone is God.



And I really won't try to explain this, but I am still reading myself about how some teach that every part of life and all we do can be sacramental.

 

[CelticRebel]

We pray - to God who is everywhere present and fillest all things ...

But that doesn't mean a tree or a stone is God.

Right. That would be pantheism.

And I really won't try to explain this, but I am still reading myself about how some teach that every part of life and all we do can be sacramental.

Yes, I believe that, too.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I can't say that the Holy Spirit is in the elements. That's the point at which I'd disagree. I can't see how the Holy Spirit operates in inanimate objects.

then I would ask when the women with the issue of blood touched the hem of Christ's garment, He said He felt power go from Him, how could His garment have healed unless by God? in fact, I would ask that of all of the inanimate objects in the Bible, such as the Ark, Peter's shadow, Paul's handkerchiefs, Elijah's mantle, etc.

 

[CelticRebel]

then I would ask when the women with the issue of blood touched the hem of Christ's garment, He said He felt power go from Him, how could His garment have healed unless by God? in fact, I would ask that of all of the inanimate objects in the Bible, such as the Ark, Peter's shadow, Paul's handkerchiefs, Elijah's mantle, etc.

Your posts and the posts of others have made me think of my long-ago support for panentheism, and so I have reconsidered my views on this. Also, when I considered myself a Quaker long ago, I always liked their view that every meal or every act can be sacramental.

The main problem I would have remaining with sacramentalism is that only a priest (or bishop) can consecrate the elements. And I still have a problem with baptismal regeneration and infant baptism.

 

[CelticRebel]

I really don't want to waste anybody's time. I guess I'm still looking to see if there's any way I could fit into Orthodoxy. I don't think there are many places I could fit. The Mennonites might be one such place. I know I couldn't be Roman Catholic, and I couldn't be Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Your posts and the posts of others have made me think of my long-ago support for panentheism, and so I have reconsidered my views on this. Also, when I considered myself a Quaker long ago, I always liked their view that every meal or every act can be sacramental.

well, we are not pantheist. God is uncreated and we are created, so while He is does fill His creation with Himself, His creation is not Himself.

The main problem I would have remaining with sacramentalism is that only a priest (or bishop) can consecrate the elements.

if that were the case, clergy could serve Liturgies on their own, and they cannot. the sacraments require the whole of the Church, with people fulfilling their unique role, to include the laity. the laity are required, so to speak. the role of the laity is just as important as that of the priest or bishop.

And I still have a problem with baptismal regeneration and infant baptism.

that's fine, God will know when you are ready for that to be clarified

 

[CelticRebel]

well, we are not pantheist. God is uncreated and we are created, so while He is does fill His creation with Himself, His creation is not Himself.

I'm not pantheist, either. There's a difference between pantheism and panentheism. I read that Orthodoxy was panentheist in orientation.


if that were the case, clergy could serve Liturgies on their own, and they cannot. the sacraments require the whole of the Church, with people fulfilling their unique role, to include the laity. the laity are required, so to speak. the role of the laity is just as important as that of the priest or bishop.

I can agree with that. I just believe that a lay person can administer the sacraments. We are all priests, according to the Bible. if an ordained priest is not present, I don't see why a layperson could not consecrate and administer the elements.


that's fine, God will know when you are ready for that to be clarified

I answered inside your post again.

 

[ArmyMatt]

you say: I'm not pantheist, either. There's a difference between pantheism and panentheism. I read that Orthodoxy was panentheist in orientation.

and that was my bad, I misread that, haha sorry. Orthodoxy I am pretty sure is not fully panentheist either.

you say: I can agree with that. I just believe that a lay person can administer the sacraments. We are all priests, according to the Bible. if an ordained priest is not present, I don't see why a layperson could not consecrate and administer the elements.

the laity are priests, and their priestly offering is the same as the ordained clergy. there is, however, an ordained clergy for a reason. and in history it is shown that the laity do certain roles that priests no longer do, and vice versa. the roles compliment each other, and all are fully needed for the Church's function.

 

[CelticRebel]

you say: I'm not pantheist, either. There's a difference between pantheism and panentheism. I read that Orthodoxy was panentheist in orientation.

and that was my bad, I misread that, haha sorry. Orthodoxy I am pretty sure is not fully panentheist either.

you say: I can agree with that. I just believe that a lay person can administer the sacraments. We are all priests, according to the Bible. if an ordained priest is not present, I don't see why a layperson could not consecrate and administer the elements.

the laity are priests, and their priestly offering is the same as the ordained clergy. there is, however, an ordained clergy for a reason. and in history it is shown that the laity do certain roles that priests no longer do, and vice versa. the roles compliment each other, and all are fully needed for the Church's function.

I have no problem agreeing with that. But in the absence of a priest -- that is, if a priest is not available, I don't see why laity could not consecrate and administer the elements.

 

[ArmyMatt]

But in the absence of a priest -- that is, if a priest is not available, I don't see why laity could not consecrate and administer the elements.

because that is not their role. in the absence of a man, a wife cannot be a father. in the absence of a women, a husband cannot be a mom. and, since I know you like Scripture, in Acts there is a reason deacons were ordained, not because the social justice side of the faith is not for the priests or below them, but that was not their calling. in the early Church, you would not have laymen together on a Sunday with no clergy who would consecrate the sacraments. they would either find a priest or they would wait.

again, think complimentary instead of opposed to.