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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
what is the difference?
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.