The number of Sacraments

[Targaryen]

Recently I've been kid of curious to see how STR defines personally the number of sacraments the church has. the general rule of thumb is Low Church/Evangelicals celebrate only 2 in name, Broad Church/Latitudinarians either stick with the Low church view of 2 or the high Church view of 7, and of course High Church/Anglo-Catholics regard 7 sacraments to the church spilit into Sacraments of the Gospel for baptism and Eucharist and Sacraments of the Church for the other 5 (Conflrmation,Matrimony,Reconciliation,Orders and Unction).

I'm curious of your personal stance and why you think thus

 

[FireDragon76]

I find the emphasis on 7 sacraments historically and theologically naïve. I believe there are only 2 dominical sacraments.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

As a High church man, I was taught that there are seven sacraments, how-and-ever two of them , Baptism and the Houseling , are of the Saviour and thus have the pre-eminence whilst five are more or less defined by the Church and are considered of a lesser importance!

 

[Targaryen]

I find the emphasis on 7 sacraments historically and theologically naïve. I believe there are only 2 dominical sacraments.

Church tradition places a high view of 7 sacraments though FireDragon, historically and theologically there is more of a precedent for them. Biblically speaking there would be only 2.

As for me, I am an Anglo-Catholic and therefore hold true to the 7 catholic sacraments.

 

[CanadianAnglican]

There is Scriptural authority for all seven of the Sacraments, it's simply that only two of them were specifically ordained by Christ. The others were borne of Scripture and rooted in Church teaching and interpretation of Scripture.

I think you mis-spoke there, LiberalAnglicanCatholic, when you suggested otherwise.

 

[FireDragon76]

Church tradition places a high view of 7 sacraments though FireDragon, historically and theologically there is more of a precedent for them. Biblically speaking there would be only 2..

Have you read Shmeman's "For the Life of the World"? There were/are a lot of Eastern Orthodox theologians that would disagree with the classification of "7 sacraments". That's more a product of Roman Catholic scholasticism, and unction in particular was used in a way that wasn't particularly biblical (the viaticum practice).

 

[Albion]

Church tradition places a high view of 7 sacraments though FireDragon, historically and theologically there is more of a precedent for them. Biblically speaking there would be only 2..

Not so. There have always been proponents of the 2. It wasn't until the High Middle Ages that the Church of the West settled on 7, following long-term debates among theologians who had theories about the correct number being anything from 2 to 30. And as was just noted, the EO have never actually settled on any number.

In addition, none of the Anglican forumularies mention 7--not the Articles, the Catechism of the historic BCP, or the Quadrilateral...but all of them refer to the 2 whether or not there are individual Anglicans who prefer 7.

 

[PaladinValer]

Recently I've been kid of curious to see how STR defines personally the number of sacraments the church has. the general rule of thumb is Low Church/Evangelicals celebrate only 2 in name, Broad Church/Latitudinarians either stick with the Low church view of 2 or the high Church view of 7, and of course High Church/Anglo-Catholics regard 7 sacraments to the church spilit into Sacraments of the Gospel for baptism and Eucharist and Sacraments of the Church for the other 5 (Conflrmation,Matrimony,Reconciliation,Orders and Unction).

I'm curious of your personal stance and why you think thus

The thing is, the Articles don't discount the other five of the historic Western Seven: they just separate them from being "Sacraments of the Gospel"...as being not necessary for salvation.

While I'm not sure that sort of "non-title" for them is accurate, the real intention and meaning behind the Article is something I completely agree with. People who do not receive Holy Matrimony or, even moreso, Holy Orders, are in no way, shape, or form without a certain saving grace as those who have. The grace given, while real, is not salvific but is a blessing of life.

I do think all who are learning the faith, either as baptized children and youth or as baptized Christians entering into Anglicanism or Old Catholicism, should participate at least once in Holy Reconciliation and Holy Unction as a part of their catechesis, particularly shortly before Confirmation or Reception. And obviously implicit in this is education of sacraments and sacramentology in Christian education at all age levels in appropriate ways.

 

[Sean611]

The thing is, the Articles don't discount the other five of the historic Western Seven: they just separate them from being "Sacraments of the Gospel"...as being not necessary for salvation.

While I'm not sure that sort of "non-title" for them is accurate, the real intention and meaning behind the Article is something I completely agree with. People who do not receive Holy Matrimony or, even moreso, Holy Orders, are in no way, shape, or form without a certain saving grace as those who have. The grace given, while real, is not salvific but is a blessing of life.

I do think all who are learning the faith, either as baptized children and youth or as baptized Christians entering into Anglicanism or Old Catholicism, should participate at least once in Holy Reconciliation and Holy Unction as a part of their catechesis, particularly shortly before Confirmation or Reception. And obviously implicit in this is education of sacraments and sacramentology in Christian education at all age levels in appropriate ways.

^This

 

[Albion]

The thing is, the Articles don't discount the other five of the historic Western Seven: they just separate them from being "Sacraments of the Gospel"...as being not necessary for salvation.

That's one way of reading that Article.

But the bigger point that I was trying to get across is that the 2 are built into almost all the Anglican statements, whereas none endorse the Medieval compromise on 7.

The 5 "lesser sacraments" or "sacraments of the Church but not the Gospel" are justified only in this way--by openly stating either that they are "lesser," "minor," "not Sacraments of the Gospel," not necessary for salvation, and/or not denied (but also not affirmed) by any of our formularies. It's not as though it's a 50-50 proposition, although that's the way the matter is often framed.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Just out of curiosity, how does High Church Anglicanism typically practice the remaining five sacraments?

 

[PaladinValer]

Just out of curiosity, how does High Church Anglicanism typically practice the remaining five sacraments?

Not much different. There may be some additional aspects to Holy Orders with formal vesting of the various vestments, but otherwise, just as per the Prayer Book.

 

[Gnarwhal]

Not much different. There may be some additional aspects to Holy Orders with formal vesting of the various vestments, but otherwise, just as per the Prayer Book.

Pardon my ignorance, but do they resemble Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy in any way? I ask only because I'm unfamiliar with what the Prayer Book instructs...

 

[Targaryen]

Unction can be used in the "extreme" case but there is also a realignment in some countries prayer books, such as for instance Canada's Book of Alternative Services that take the act of unction into a healing ministry that along with general confession and absolution and the Eucharist can be done in a traditional Sunday service or mid-week service.

Confession doesn't look like the Roman/Orthodox model in the sense the wide spread use is in the General confession and Absolution in the services of Morning and Evening Prayer and the Eucharist. Auricular confession is made provision for, but it would rely on using the rector's office or private talk in the sanctuary as a general rule, I'm unsure if Anglican parishes have confessional booths like in RC/Orthodox churches.

Orders and Confirmation looks more like the RC/Orthodox model

 

[PaladinValer]

Pardon my ignorance, but do they resemble Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy in any way? I ask only because I'm unfamiliar with what the Prayer Book instructs...

Anglicanism is considered Western, so our ceremonial is akin to the Christian West. Lutherans, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, and Methodists (if they vest) all vest the same and our liturgical rites are pretty much look visibly the same.

So an Anglican priest or bishop anointing someone with the Oil of the Sick or the Oil of Sacred Chrism does so like a Roman Catholic. Our Marriage Rites are virtually or outright identical as well. A more high church Ordination's ceremonial will be virtually or outright identical too.

The only possible real difference may be in our Rite of Holy Reconciliation, which is more akin to the Eastern Orthodox, although old school 2nd generation Anglo-Catholics will do it in a way identical to the traditional Western style, complete with a confessional booth. Even more broad church practice of this rite is done typically Eastern style.

 

[Albion]

Just out of curiosity, how does High Church Anglicanism typically practice the remaining five sacraments?

"High Church" means a lot of ceremony. Anglicans who think of the church as a variety of Catholicism, and tend to believe there are seven sacraments, unsurprisingly tend also to modify the instructions in the Prayer Book in order have their observance or celebration of the sacraments be similar to the Roman Catholic practice with regard to postures, vestments, etc.

 

[Targaryen]

"High Church" means a lot of ceremony. You are asking about doctrine/belief instead.

Normally, the term is "Anglo-Catholic." Anglicans who think of the church as a variety of Catholicism tend to believe there are seven sacraments, often qualifying that concept by calling the two Sacraments that almost every Christian church accepts "Sacraments of the Gospel" and the other five that were decided upon by the Roman Catholic Church as "lesser sacraments" or as "Sacraments of the Church" or some similar expression that ranks them.

But then again, mainline Anglicans often describe the other five in similar terms because it's believed that they are important and are channels of Grace but only that they were not instituted by Christ and certainly are not necessary for salvation. In other words, the difference between the groups may not be as striking as outsiders suppose.

There are appointed rituals for them all, such as the famous Anglican marriage ceremony, regardless of whichever way one wants to define them.

Bagel asked for practise....not belief

 

[mark46]

There are several traditions among Anglicans/Episicoplians. In some, an outsider would not see any difference between a Catholic and Anglican ceremony in any of the 7 sacraments.

I used to work in Boston. The main Anglican church downtown was indistinguishable from a Catholic Church, other than for the occasional female priest. To the chagrin of our church deacons, Catholics and Anglicans would jointly leave work to worship together and return to work. Sometimes we would go the Catholic Church in the building where we worked, sometimes to the Anglican church a block or so away.

Just out of curiosity, how does High Church Anglicanism typically practice the remaining five sacraments?

 

[Sean611]

Reading the responses on here, it seems that there really isn't much, if any, disagreement on the number of sacraments. Those that say seven sacraments are saying that two are sacraments of the gospel that generally necessary for salvation, while the other five are not in the same category as the gospel sacraments. Those who say two sacraments of the gospel point out that there are 5 other sacramental rites. It sounds like we are all pretty much saying the same thing.

 

[Targaryen]

This wasn't about highlighting disagreement on the sacraments, it was seeing who identified with a certain policy surrounding the sacraments.