Symbols/Sacraments

[HumbleMan]

Hi!

I grew up agnostic, and came to Christ in a pretty holy rolling church about nine years ago. During my time in that church, I was taught to believe that the only real, solid thing which mattered was my faith, and that the sacraments (baptism, communion, etc) were only symbolic (this excludes marriage, which isn't seen as a sacrament in that church) and had no power whatsoever.

I'm still up in the air about this, because I feel that from reading the bible, it's true that God has used symbolic gestures and items throughout history, but I also know that we can't know His mysteries.

So, I guess what I'd like to know is, what is the thought/tradition/reason/etc behind the Apostolic churches belief in the sacraments?

Thanks!

 

[E.C.]

So, I guess what I'd like to know is, what is the thought/tradition/reason/etc behind the Apostolic churches belief in the sacraments?

Thanks!

Simple: it is what the Apostles had taught the Christians in the first century. From that generation, it went to the next and to the next and so on and so forth.

And when (example here) Sts. Cyrill and Methodius, two Greek brothers, went to the Slavic lands to teach them about Christ; they taught the Slavs that which they themselves were taught by their ancestors and ancestors' ancestors. Just taught it in what we now call Old Slavonic and not Greek.

That is the main reason.

However, that does not mean that there is no theology behind each sacrament. Baptism, Chrismation, Communion, Confession, Ordination, Holy Unction and Marriage are all rich with theological backing (from the Bible too! )

 

[HumbleMan]

Simple: it is what the Apostles had taught the Christians in the first century. From that generation, it went to the next and to the next and so on and so forth.

And when (example here) Sts. Cyrill and Methodius, two Greek brothers, went to the Slavic lands to teach them about Christ; they taught the Slavs that which they themselves were taught by their ancestors and ancestors' ancestors. Just taught it in what we now call Old Slavonic and not Greek.

That is the main reason.

However, that does not mean that there is no theology behind each sacrament. Baptism, Chrismation, Communion, Confession, Ordination, Holy Unction and Marriage are all rich with theological backing (from the Bible too! )

Hey, EC! Thanks for the background. I kind of figured that it was spread as tradition, before canons and creeds were formalized, but I am interested in the theology (and origins) of each sacramental belief.

I'm not here to argue the Apostolic teachings on them, but really am trying to learn. I am still searching for the church where both my wife and I are felt that we're led to. If you remember, I was asking questions about Orthodoxy a while back, and even though right now, I have trouble reconciling some doctrine (especially Apostolic beliefs about baptism and the Eucharist), I do have a deep appreciation for the tradition, worship, and hsitory of Orthodoxy.

Thanks,

.....................

 

[E.C.]

Hey, EC! Thanks for the background. I kind of figured that it was spread as tradition, before canons and creeds were formalized, but I am interested in the theology (and origins) of each sacramental belief.

Its simple really. Your dad gives you a family heirloom of some sort and you don't change it by taking or adding to.

The same is said about our faith.

I'm not here to argue the Apostolic teachings on them, but really am trying to learn. I am still searching for the church where both my wife and I are felt that we're led to. If you remember, I was asking questions about Orthodoxy a while back, and even though right now, I have trouble reconciling some doctrine (especially Apostolic beliefs about baptism and the Eucharist), I do have a deep appreciation for the tradition, worship, and hsitory of Orthodoxy.

Thanks,

.....................

Ah yes, I remember that! No wonder your screen name seemed familiar!


Fr. Thomas Hopko published a four part series entitled "The Orthodox Faith". The entirety of each booklet can be found here: http://www.oca.org/OCorthfaith.asp?SID=2 (the sacraments can be found in the worship one).

Hope it helps!

Forgive me, since I came originally from the Roman Church, a lot of things such as sacraments were not really significant hurdles in my becoming Orthodox.

 

[HumbleMan]

I will check those out when I get a chance. Thanks for the link.

 

[E.C.]

I will check those out when I get a chance. Thanks for the link.

No problem!

The series is very well written.

 

[Secundulus]

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about the sacraments, complete with scriptural references.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p2s1c1a2.htm

 

[Albion]

Hi!

I grew up agnostic, and came to Christ in a pretty holy rolling church about nine years ago. During my time in that church, I was taught to believe that the only real, solid thing which mattered was my faith, and that the sacraments (baptism, communion, etc) were only symbolic (this excludes marriage, which isn't seen as a sacrament in that church) and had no power whatsoever.

I'm still up in the air about this, because I feel that from reading the bible, it's true that God has used symbolic gestures and items throughout history, but I also know that we can't know His mysteries.

So, I guess what I'd like to know is, what is the thought/tradition/reason/etc behind the Apostolic churches belief in the sacraments?

Thanks!

The sacraments--Baptism and The Lord's Supper--were 1) demonstrated to us by Jesus, and 2) commanded to be observed by his disciples after his departure from this earth. This is all clear in the Bible, so "tradition" and guesses about what the Apostles might have said later on, which is unknown, doesn't really figure into any decision you have to make about them. What the exact nature of the sacraments and other sacramentals and devotions may be is another question, but observing the sacaments is a command and a benefit.

As for those who say faith is paramount, of course it is. If we were to force an atheist, for example, to consume the elements at Holy Communion, it wouldn't make him a believer, save him, or anything of the sort.

But I'd disagree that this makes the sacraments pointless when it comes to believers. Even if the sacraments are--as was said in your former church--entirely symbolic, they still have a powerful impact upon our senses, reminding us of Jesus's great works, and they are also, as I said before, commanded of us. That means that we show our commitment to Jesus by observing/receiving them, at the very least.

 

[Simon_Templar]

Hey HumbleMan,

I was born and raised in the charismatic non-denom Church. So I have some similar background to yours.

Over the last 3 years or so I came to believe in the sacramental nature of faith and worship etc, especially baptism and communion.

a couple of things I would point out first are...
#1 - ritual has always scripturally been an important part of God's worship. If you look at the worship of God through out scripture, much of it is formal, and based on ritual or ceremony. This was not put in place by man, but by God.

#2 - it is true that God has used signs and symbols and types and shadows through out history. However, the new covenant of Jesus' blood, is the reality which all the other types and signs and symbols point to.. thus it seems a little odd to assume that the elements of the new covenant, the sacraments, are themselves, only symbols.

In the OT there are several symbols or forshadowings of baptism... so why would God send symbols to forshadow something that is itself, just a symbol?

#3 - the fact that something is symbolic doesn't mean that it is JUST symbolic, or ONLY symbolic.

#4 - scripturally faith is inseperable from action. in other words faith must be expressed. Why should it seem strange to us then that our faith should be met by grace specifically through perscribed actions or expressions, like baptism and communion.

#5 - if you really look closely at what the bible says about both baptism and communion, you can't take it literally without arriving at a sacramental view.

 

[OldHighChurchman]

During my time in that church, I was taught to believe that the only real, solid thing which mattered was my faith, and that the sacraments (baptism, communion, etc) were only symbolic (this excludes marriage, which isn't seen as a sacrament in that church) and had no power whatsoever.

God made a covenant with Abraham and instituted circumcision as a symbol of that covenant. Through circumcision, you entered the covenant community. This covenant has not changed only baptism has now replaced circumcision. Through baptism you become a member of the Church. Receiving baptism in faith means that you partake of those blessings that were purchased by his death.

 

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

I highly advise you read Alexander Schmemann's For the Life of the World. It's a beautiful meditation on the sacraments and the liturgy with firm theological grounding. It's not too long (150 pp.) and you can get it from amazon.com or request it from the help desk at your local Borders.

Certainly, the most important sacraments to understand are baptism and the eucharist, but since you bring it up, marriage should provide an excellent example.

When two people are married, the marriage ceremony is not merely symbolic for a union that they previous professed, or one that they will soon have through whatever means. The marriage ceremony, and the priest's (or pastor's) conferral of married status with the 'pronouncement' (of man and wife) really, really is what makes them married. More than a symbol, the marriage ritual actually does something through the words spoken and ritual performed.

So too with other sacraments, especially baptism and the Eucharist. With the words 'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,' baptism actually adopts a person as a child of God, brought into that life trajectory that eventually leads them to a place where they will fully enjoy participation in the divine life in the beating Triune heart of God (what we call theosis). In the same way, the Words of the Institution- 'On the night in which he was betrayed... this is my body... this is my blood...' actually invite Christ to step off his heavenly throne to greet us in person through the elements of bread and wine, and actually call us to 'life up our hearts' into his heavenly throne room which we glimpse in Revelation 5.

For biblical statements on baptism, see especially John 3:5, Acts 2:38-39, Romans 6:4, Galatians 3:27-28, Colossians 2:11-12, Ephesians 5:26-26, Titus 3:5, and 1 Peter 3:20-21. See also the very interesting prophecy in Ezekiel 36:25.

For biblical statements on the Eucharist, see the words of the institution in Mark 14:22-25 (and parallels in Matthew 26:26-29 and Luke 22:17-20) and 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (the version most often used in the liturgy). See also the whole of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, as well as 1 Corinthians 10:1-22 (especially vv. 16-21) and John 6:22-58.

Best of luck in your inquiries!

 

[Melethiel]

I highly advise you read Alexander Schmemann's For the Life of the World. It's a beautiful meditation on the sacraments and the liturgy with firm theological grounding. It's not too long (150 pp.) and you can get it from amazon.com or request it from the help desk at your local Borders.

Certainly, the most important sacraments to understand are baptism and the eucharist, but since you bring it up, marriage should provide an excellent example.

When two people are married, the marriage ceremony is not merely symbolic for a union that they previous professed, or one that they will soon have through whatever means. The marriage ceremony, and the priest's (or pastor's) conferral of married status with the 'pronouncement' (of man and wife) really, really is what makes them married. More than a symbol, the marriage ritual actually does something through the words spoken and ritual performed.

So too with other sacraments, especially baptism and the Eucharist. With the words 'Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,' baptism actually adopts a person as a child of God, brought into that life trajectory that eventually leads them to a place where they will fully enjoy participation in the divine life in the beating Triune heart of God (what we call theosis). In the same way, the Words of the Institution- 'On the night in which he was betrayed... this is my body... this is my blood...' actually invite Christ to step off his heavenly throne to greet us in person through the elements of bread and wine, and actually call us to 'life up our hearts' into his heavenly throne room which we glimpse in Revelation 5.

For biblical statements on baptism, see especially John 3:5, Acts 2:38-39, Romans 6:4, Galatians 3:27-28, Colossians 2:11-12, Ephesians 5:26-26, Titus 3:5, and 1 Peter 3:20-21. See also the very interesting prophecy in Ezekiel 36:25.

For biblical statements on the Eucharist, see the words of the institution in Mark 14:22-25 (and parallels in Matthew 26:26-29 and Luke 22:17-20) and 1 Corinthians 11:23-26 (the version most often used in the liturgy). See also the whole of 1 Corinthians 11:17-34, as well as 1 Corinthians 10:1-22 (especially vv. 16-21) and John 6:22-58.

Best of luck in your inquiries!

What he said.

 

[a_ntv]

In the same way, the Words of the Institution- 'On the night in which he was betrayed... this is my body... this is my blood...' actually invite Christ to step off his heavenly throne to greet us in person through the elements of bread and wine, and actually call us to 'life up our hearts' into his heavenly throne room which we glimpse in Revelation 5.

What an elaborate speach not to say what actually Christ said: This [the bread] is [actually] my Body, This [the wine] is [actually] my Blood.

In the Gospel, and in the Catholic Eucaristic, the subject is NOT the faithfuls that invite Christ, but the subject is Christ that offers Himself

 

[Albion]

What an elaborate speach not to say what actually Christ said: This [the bread] is [actually] my Body, This [the wine] is [actually] my Blood.

I think you know that Christ often spoke figuratively, as when he said he was the vine and we the branches. You do not take that literally, so by the same token you cannot say that there is no question but that he meant it literally when he said "This my Body."

There may be another way to approach the understanding of his words here, but just to insist that they were meant "actually," i.e. literally, doesn't work.

 

[E.C.]

Christ "This really is My Body. This really is My Blood".

Real Presence.

See St. Justin Martyr.

 

[Albion]

Christ "This really is My Body. This really is My Blood".

Who are you quoting there? Certainly not Jesus as recorded in any of the Gospels. What he said was "This my body....This my blood."

Clearly, there's more than one way to understand the words Jesus used, and I say this because it's true, not because I don't believe in the Real Presence--which I do.

 

[E.C.]

Who are you quoting there? Certainly not Jesus as recorded in any of the Gospels. What he said was "This my body....This my blood."

Clearly, there's more than one way to understand the words Jesus used, and I say this because it's true, not because I don't believe in the Real Presence--which I do.

I'm sorry, apparently the ways of paraphrasing and close-to-exact quoteness are no longer understood in these parts.

 

[Albion]

I'm sorry, apparently the ways of paraphrasing and close-to-exact quoteness are no longer understood in these parts.

I understand that what you did changed the meaning. And you presented it as a quotation, when it was actually your wording. That's not what a paraphrase is.

 

[E.C.]

I understand that what you did changed the meaning. That's not a paraphrase.

Did it?

I must not have realized.

I'm but a simple Acolyte.

Forgive me.

 

[Albion]

Did it?

I must not have realized.

I'm but a simple Acolyte.

Forgive me.

You're forgiven...but Jesus still didn't say "really" my body,k etc. We are left to try to understand the intended meaning of "This (is) my body." While we can come to different understandings, there's no reason for any of us to speak as though those who don't hold the same view just don't want to believe what's clear cut, beyond questioning, in black and whilte, and so on. So often that's how people debate complicated issues, whatever they may be.