Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!porthos.rutgers.edu!christian From: nlt@romeo.cs.duke.edu (N. L. Tinkham) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Who do you say Christ is? (and other questions) Message-ID: Date: 15 Sep 89 08:04:46 GMT Sender: hedrick@porthos.rutgers.edu Organization: Duke University CS Dept.; Durham, NC Lines: 91 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu I have a minor factual correction to an otherwise informative article. Bill Petro writes: > What is the "Ex opere operato" faith of the Roman Church? It > is the idea that grace comes to you by the performing of certain > sacraments. There are seven of them, but two of them cancel each other > out, marriage and celibacy, as it seems that you can't be in both of > these states. While the state of celibacy may be sacramental in a more general sense of the word, it is not among the "official" seven sacraments, which are: baptism, the eucharist, reconciliation of a penitent, marriage, confirmation, ordination, and extreme unction (or anointing of the sick, depending on whether it is practiced for the dying only or for non-terminal sickness). Most Protestant denominations, of course, either classify only the first two as sacraments or reject the concept of "sacrament" altogether. (As I write, I am remembering that many denominations which consider baptism and the eucharist to be sacraments do perform marriages and ordinations but do not consider them sacramental. This seems odd to me. Since we have some Real Live Protestant readers :-), perhaps someone can comment helpfully. Is it merely that since the "lesser sacraments" were not ordained by Jesus himself, we do not know whether they convey grace, or is it, more strongly, a statement that they do not in fact have a sacramental quality to them?) I leave debate on the relative roles of grace, faith, and the sacraments in salvation to those with more time and stamina than I. My standard objection is that a sacramental system seems to me no more a departure from salvation by grace alone than is a system of salvation by grace plus acceptance of Jesus as one's "personal Lord and Savior". (Uh-oh, that may get me into a debate anyway... :-) ) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "For Christ plays in ten thousand places, Nancy Tinkham Lovely in limbs, and lovely in eyes not his nlt@lear.cs.duke.edu To the Father through the features of men's faces." rutgers!mcnc!duke!nlt [You ask for a Real Protestant answer. I guess as a Presbyterian elder I qualify as a Real Protestant. I'm going to give you something close to Calvin's answer. I think it is typical of the "high church" Protestant view. Of course there is no one Protestant answer. The low church tradition tends not to use the term sacrament, or to use it without all of the implications that it has for other traditions. Sacraments require two things: Christ must have instituted them specifically, and they must be sacramental. By sacramental I mean that they are actions that points beyond themselves, being an acted out form of the Word. This will become clearer below. Christ did not establish ordination. He is considered to have endorsed marriage (e.g. at Cana). However he did not command the Church to celebrate it as a sacrament. Nor is it one. The specific actions undertaken in baptism and communion have no intrinsic significance. From a visible point of view, it's just putting a bit of water on someone, or eating a very small amount of food. The significance appears only when you see them as forms in which God's promises are made visible. But marriage does not have this character of being simply a visible sign of a spiritual reality. Marriage has an intrinsic significance. It is what it is. Even pagans marry. It's true that marriage can be taken as symbolic of the relationship between Christ and the church. But the Bible uses lots of metaphors. The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed (Mat. 13:31). Is eating mustard to be a sacrament? The Lord will feed his flock like a shepherd. (Isa 40:10) Is herding sheep a sacrament? [Calvin lists lots of these examples.] Calvin acknowledges that there is a wider sense of the term sacramental. One can see many things in life as in some sense sacramental. This is a deep and valuable insight. He does not object to the concept of life as a continuing sacrament. However when the term is used as a technical one to refer to specific institutions, he reserves it for the two actions specifically instituted as sacraments by Christ. Frankly I think some of this was in a sense a tactical decision. As such some of the motivations may no longer apply. The Reformers believed that there were great abuses of all of the sacraments. Baptism and communion had to be purified. They had been directly instituted by Christ. However the simplest way to get marriage out from under canon law was simply to deny that it was a sacrament, and give it back to secular judges. Similarly, denying ordination the status of sacrament was a way of attacking what they saw as overblown claims for authority by priests and bishops. I am certainly more comfortable with just the two sacraments. But I can also see ways in which one could view marriage as a sacrament. And as long as it was not coupled with any views of marriage that were objectionable for other reasons, I find it hard to find much enthusiasm for fighting on the issue. Indeed I believe Luther said much the same. --clh]