When did western Catholics set a definitive number of sacraments?

[Albion]

To be fair to Ebia, let us don't forget that categorization came primarily with the scholastics and they were not thought of as 7 early on.

Ebia's right. The number was set at 7 in the High Middle Ages. Previously, various people surmised that there were from 2 to 30 sacraments. And the Orthodox do not set a firm figure as a matter of principle.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Ok, to settle this to any degree, can someone please name some of the other sacraments that the Catholic Church or Eastern rite or Orthodox Churches celebrated?

 

[Erose]

Ebia's right. The number was set at 7 in the High Middle Ages. Previously, various people surmised that there were from 2 to 30 sacraments. And the Orthodox do not set a firm figure as a matter of principle.

Do you have evidence of these assertions Albion. Please forgive me, I have learned that it is necessary to ask because there are so many assumptions here on this board.

 

[Albion]

Do you have evidence of these assertions Albion. Please forgive me, I have learned that it is necessary to ask because there are so many assumptions here on this board.

It's no assumption. Different theologians and schoolmen had different theories, and ultimately the Church made its decision. There's little that's controversial about that. The RCC simply says that this was how "development of doctrine" works. But to print out evidence here will require me to do some searching. I will do that when I have time. If you research also, you might beat me.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I'd love to know what 'other' sacraments were proposed...

 

[Albion]

I'd love to know what 'other' sacraments were proposed...

Well, off the top of my head, I know that the following were argued for--

Preaching the Gospel

Hearing the Gospel preached.

Burying the Dead.

Ordaining a man as a bishop (which we usually call "Consecration", not Ordination) apart from the Holy Orders received by him earlier as a Deacon or Priest.

Footwashing.

Interestingly enough, there are a couple of Protestant denominations that consider the third and the last of these to be sacraments, although most Protestant churches consider only Baptism and the Lord's Supper to be sacraments/ordinances.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, off the top of my head, I know that the following were argued for--

Preaching the Gospel

Hearing the Gospel preached.

Burying the Dead.

Ordaining a man as a bishop (which we usually call "Consecration", not Ordination) apart from the Holy Orders received by him earlier as a Deacon or Priest.

Footwashing.

Interestingly enough, there are a couple of Protestant denominations that consider the third and the last of these to be sacraments, although most Protestant churches consider only Baptism and the Lord's Supper to be sacraments/ordinances.

None of them was ever called a sacrament. People 'argued for' Jesus not being God, not being man, but these were never Catholic doctrine.

Also, you seem to be mentioning offices of the Church. Preaching the gospel, burying the dead, and bishop were all offices of the Church.

 

[Albion]

None of them was ever called a sacrament.

OOh yes, they were.

People 'argued for' Jesus not being God, not being man, but these were never Catholic doctrine.

you seem to be looking for any way to avoid history. That's not necessary. It would be much more effective to acknowledge that this is the way it was but then begin arguing on the grounds of how the Church makes its decision as to what a sacrament is, how we know this is right, does scripture support the contention that some practice or other is a sacrament, and so on.

Also, you seem to be mentioning offices of the Church. Preaching the gospel, burying the dead, and bishop were all offices of the Church.

No, I was asked to name some of the practices that some important person or other thought should be considered sacraments in the years befoe the Church settled on the seven we have now. I merely identified some of those that were in that category; I didn't evaluate them in any way.

 

[Root of Jesse]

OOh yes, they were.


you seem to be looking for any way to avoid history. That's not necessary. It would be much more effective to acknowledge that this is the way it was but then begin arguing on the grounds of how the Church makes its decision as to what a sacrament is, how we know this is right, does scripture support the contention that some practice or other is a sacrament, and so on.



No, I was asked to name some of the practices that some important person or other thought should be considered sacraments in the years befoe the Church settled on the seven we have now. I merely identified some of those that were in that category; I didn't evaluate them in any way.

Not by anyone in authority. Some important person or other doesn't validate that they were practices as sacraments.

As I said, lots of things have been considered, including maintaining Jewish dietary laws, requirement of circumcision of males, the claim of Jesus' divinity, female clergy, and so on. But none of those you mention was ever officially a sacrament of the Catholic Church.

 

[Albion]

Not by anyone in authority.

I supppose that "in authority" gives you a needed escape. But the great Schoolmen of the age, like Peter Lombard, would seem to be significant. You really need to study up on this matter rather than dismiss it out of hand and then scramble for some rationalization.

 

[Root of Jesse]

To be fair, I guess it does matter how you use the term 'sacraments'. That was defined at the Council of Florence. So maybe we're talking past each other. Even today, some priests put sacramentals such as holy water on a par with sacraments, so it's possible to see the confusion...the concept of a sacrament was insufficiently developed in the ancient Church, and there was dispute about which Christian rituals and practices should be called sacraments. Sometimes the term was used to embrace practices we would deem sacramentals today. Sometimes its use was wider still, so that anything which could have a religious symbolism was called a sacrament.

 

[Albion]

To be fair, I guess it does matter how you use the term 'sacraments'. That was defined at the Council of Florence. So maybe we're talking past each other. Even today, some priests put sacramentals such as holy water on a par with sacraments, so it's possible to see the confusion...the concept of a sacrament was insufficiently developed in the ancient Church, and there was dispute about which Christian rituals and practices should be called sacraments. Sometimes the term was used to embrace practices we would deem sacramentals today. Sometimes its use was wider still, so that anything which could have a religious symbolism was called a sacrament.

Sounds right, but I was just saying that the seven sacraments (as opposed to sacramentals) weren't finalized until that time, and before then, speculation from some prominent thinkers has suggested that anything from 2 to 30 or more could meet the definition of a sacrament (physical component, Christ's institution, forgives sin, gives grace). The Church made its decision but the Reformers reconsidered the issue, finding that if the Roman Church's own standards were correctly applied, 5 of these wouldn't meet it. I happen to agree that although the Church should administer tghe 5, they don't meet that standard.

 

[ebia]

In reality a huge swathe of Christianity agrees you have:

Baptism and Eucharist
then
Some others
Then
An uncounted number of other minor sacramental actions

Dispute is largely about exactly what arbitary classification you'll apply to the middle group, and where the arbitrary line between sacrament and sacramental will be drawn.

 

[Albion]

In reality a huge swathe of Christianity agrees you have:

Baptism and Eucharist
then
Some others
Then
An uncounted number of other minor sacramental actions

Dispute is largely about exactly what arbitary classification you'll apply to the middle group, and where the arbitrary line between sacrament and sacramental will be drawn.

Are you attempting to set something straight that was in doubt?

 

[ebia]

Are you attempting to set something straight that was in doubt?

Just articulating something I thought ought to be articulated at this point.

 

[Albion]

Just articulating something I thought ought to be articulated at this point.

Ah. Thanks.