Council O' Trent And Number O' Sacraments

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1857811' date='May 4 2009, 07:32 PM']The [b]Ecumenical[/b] Council of Trent has this to say about the number of sacraments:

"If anyone shall say that the sacraments of the New Law were not all instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord, or [b]that there are more or less than seven[/b], namely baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, order, and matrimony, or even that anyone of these seven is not truly and strictly speaking a sacrament: let him be anathema." (Denzinger-Schonmetzer 1601, emphasis added)[/quote]

Of course, the Council of Trent was a reaction to the Protestant Reformation, in which Luther taught that there are only two sacraments and Calvin taught that sacraments are a "pile of horse poo" (his words, not mine... I'll have to find that reference).

Regardless, it's reasonable to believe Christ instituted the seven sacraments, but as you learn about the beliefs and practices of early Christians, you see that knowledge of the sacraments wasn't as clear cut and defined as some of us might like to believe. FWIW, this is why Protestant theologians are able to read their own theology into the early Church. It doesn't mean the Council of Trent was wrong, but it may not be the way we imagine it either.

This is why Church history is so fascinating... orthodoxy is an adventure through time, to borrow a bit from Chesterton.

[Aloysius]

Apotheoun, would I be correct if I said that your definition of a "mystery" does not include the qualification that it was directly instituted by Christ Himself during the historical period of time in which He was incarnate on earth? It seems to me that you would not propose, for instance, that Christ Tonsured monks and nuns, blessed Theophany Water (Agiasmo), Consecrated Churches, gave Funeral Absolutions, or wrote icons, correct?

so, two distinct questions I would ask are: would it be possible or plausible in an Eastern perspective to say that those 7 mysteries are the only ones instituted by Christ during His time on Earth? and then the other question is: do you personally think that any mysteries other than those 7 were instituted by Christ during His time on Earth?

I know Christ remains present within the Church, I am limiting the questioning to the specific time period between His birth and ascension. this would not be to say that Christ did not institute the other mysteries, but that He did not do so during His earthly life prior to His ascension.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1858632' date='May 5 2009, 01:45 PM']Apotheoun, would I be correct if I said that your definition of a "mystery" does not include the qualification that it was directly instituted by Christ Himself during the historical period of time in which He was incarnate on earth? It seems to me that you would not propose, for instance, that Christ Tonsured monks and nuns, blessed Theophany Water (Agiasmo), Consecrated Churches, gave Funeral Absolutions, or wrote icons, correct?

so, two distinct questions I would ask are: would it be possible or plausible in an Eastern perspective to say that those 7 mysteries are the only ones instituted by Christ during His time on Earth? and then the other question is: do you personally think that any mysteries other than those 7 were instituted by Christ during His time on Earth?

I know Christ remains present within the Church, I am limiting the questioning to the specific time period between His birth and ascension. this would not be to say that Christ did not institute the other mysteries, but that He did not do so during His earthly life prior to His ascension.[/quote]
Eastern Christians, following the teaching of the Eastern Fathers, hold that all the mysteries are directly instituted by Christ. Thus, we reject the late medieval Western view (i.e., of the Scholastic philosophers) that limits the sacraments to seven particular rites.

The blessing of the Waters on Theophany ([i]Agiasmo[/i]) was directly instituted by Christ when He submitted to baptism at the hands of St. John; and icons were directly instituted by Christ when He became incarnate of the Theotokos, and thus instituted the dispensation of images; while the consecration of a Church was directly instituted by Christ, for the Church -- both the building used in worship and its members -- are consecrated to God, which makes them both signs and instruments of God's grace manifesting His presence in the world.

That said, the East rejects the idea that Christ only directly acted during His earthly ministry, as this idea, which is contrary to the doctrine which identifies Christ with the Church (for the Head and the Body are but One Man stretching throughout time), was unknown to the ancient Fathers.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1858632' date='May 5 2009, 01:45 PM']I know Christ remains present within the Church, I am limiting the questioning to the specific time period between His birth and ascension. this would not be to say that Christ did not institute the other mysteries, but that He did not do so during His earthly life prior to His ascension.[/quote]
You may know that Christ is present in the Church, but Eastern Christians experience His direct presence in the liturgy and all the many mysteries He gave us.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1858578' date='May 5 2009, 12:20 PM']Of course, the Council of Trent was a reaction to the Protestant Reformation, in which Luther taught that there are only two sacraments and Calvin taught that sacraments are a "pile of horse poo" (his words, not mine... I'll have to find that reference).[/quote]
Yes, and as the Eastern Catholic bishops in America said in connection with the publication of the new catechism (a document that represents a Western approach to the Christian life):

[quote]The medieval approach to presenting the Sacraments (Part Two, Section Two) - Some attempt has been made to add more patristic references, but this limiting perspective remains. Seemingly the intention is to return to the scholastic ordering for understanding the sacraments. One example is the treatment of the institution of the sacraments by Christ (2084-88). In 2087 it is stated that the Church does not invent or institute the sacraments; rather they have been instituted by Christ (see also 2095), implying a distinction proper to the earthly life of Jesus. This approach has necessitated locating moments in the Gospel when Christ instituted each sacrament, a major issue at the time of the Reformation.

In 2088 a more patristic approach is enunciated: that the Church is not exterior to Christ. It is His Body, the "whole Christ." It is rather in this sense that the origin of the sacraments should be envisioned, avoiding the fundamentalist snare of the medieval stance.[/quote]
The current Western approach to the "sacraments" is a modern innovation of the late medieval period, which reflects only the concerns of the Latin Church.

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1858578' date='May 5 2009, 12:20 PM']Regardless, it's reasonable to believe Christ instituted the seven sacraments, but as you learn about the beliefs and practices of early Christians, you see that knowledge of the sacraments wasn't as clear cut and defined as some of us might like to believe. FWIW, this is why Protestant theologians are able to read their own theology into the early Church. It doesn't mean the Council of Trent was wrong, but it may not be the way we imagine it either.[/quote]
I agree that Christ instituted what the West calls the "seven sacraments"; nevertheless, I reject the notion that He only instituted "seven sacraments" (which are better called "mysteries") within the Church.

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1858578' date='May 5 2009, 12:20 PM']This is why Church history is so fascinating... orthodoxy is an adventure through time, to borrow a bit from Chesterton.[/quote]
I agree.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1858647' date='May 5 2009, 05:11 PM']That said, the East rejects the idea that Christ only directly acted during His earthly ministry, as this idea, which is contrary to the doctrine which identifies Christ with the Church (for the Head and the Body are but One Man stretching throughout time), was unknown to the ancient Fathers.[/quote]
I was trying to pre-empt that statement:
[quote]I know Christ remains present within the Church, I am limiting the questioning to the specific time period between His birth and ascension. this would not be to say that Christ did not institute the other mysteries, but that He did not do so during His earthly life prior to His ascension.[/quote]

Again, it would not be to say that Christ did not institute the mystery if He did not do so between His birth and ascension, but there are some things that He specifically did do between His birth and ascension.

there is, from the scriptures, an obvious sense (at least to me) that the sacraments of Baptism, the Eucharist, confession, and ordination were the ones which were specifically done by Christ Himself as sacraments administered to the faithful disciples/apostles. then, arguably, anointing of the sick is the mystery of what He did in His miraculous healings.

confirmation was administered to the faithful by Christ when He gave them the Holy Spirit.

marriage is the only one of the seven I cannot necessarily say Christ did in His life on earth between birth and ascension.

however, under the criteria of sacraments that Christ, between birth and ascension (or actually, between His birth and Pentecost, which is when His Apostles really took over for Him), administered to the faithful in His human body during that time period, would you add any to the six above mentioned? By this criteria I am unsure how matrimony would fit, but I'm just trying to see... is there any way in which there are 7 (or at least, some) sacraments which were instituted in a different way that the many other mysteries you acknowledge?

you know us Romans and our lists... which mysteries would you say Christ administered to the faithful in His human body in the historical period between His birth and His Ascension/Pentecost?

[Apotheoun]

Icons are mysteries (i.e., what Westerners call a "sacrament"), for they are an [i]anamnesis[/i] of Christ's life (both during His earthly ministry and throughout His life as it is lived in His body the Church), and as an anamnesis of His grace filled life they make present what they signify.

The post below explains what I mean:

[quote]An icon is a living expression of the Orthodox faith.

In other words, an icon is not a piece of art, and the iconographer is not an artist in the modern sense of that word, because he is not trying to express his own ideas, nor is he trying to display his own natural talents. The iconographer is first and foremost creating a liturgical prayer, a window into heaven, and in order to do this he must live the Orthodox faith through prayer and fasting, while following the norms established by the Church's iconographic Tradition.

Moreover, in writing an icon the iconographer is creating a specific memory (anamnesis) of an event or person within the life of the Church, a memory (anamnesis) that is identical to the memory (anamnesis) of the whole Church. Thus, an icon is a theophany, i.e., it is a manifestation of God through an eruption of divine energy into the world, which means that an icon really is what it signifies; and so, to touch an icon is to touch the personal reality of the mystery itself.

For more information on icons I would recommend getting a copy of the book: The Meaning of Icons, by Leonid Ouspensky and Vladimir Lossky. Fr. Kucharek's book The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is also helpful.[/quote]

Taken from the thread: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=71794&view=findpost&p=1362959"][u]This Is An Icon. That Is Not An Icon., Where is the line drawn?[/u][/url]

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1858668' date='May 5 2009, 02:30 PM'][quote name='Apotheoun' post='1858647' date='May 5 2009, 02:11 PM']
That said, the East rejects the idea that Christ only directly acted during His earthly ministry, as this idea, which is contrary to the doctrine which identifies Christ with the Church (for the Head and the Body are but One Man stretching throughout time), was unknown to the ancient Fathers.[/quote]

I was trying to pre-empt that statement . . .
[/quote]
Try as you might you cannot pre-empt that statement because you and I fundamentally disagree on what it means for Christ to "directly" institute something. Quite simply, I reject the Scholastic limitations that you accept as normative, because for me -- as an Eastern Catholic -- the Scholastic philosophical synthesis has no real value.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

Frankly, the whole idea of "trying to prove" what Christ directly instituted and what He did not is Western.

[mortify]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1858677' date='May 5 2009, 04:38 PM']Frankly, the whole idea of "trying to prove" what Christ directly instituted and what He did not is Western.[/quote]

It has more to do with Protestants claiming the Sacraments were man-made, than an interest in proving a direct institution by Christ.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='mortify' post='1858696' date='May 5 2009, 03:06 PM']It has more to do with Protestants claiming the Sacraments were man-made, than an interest in proving a direct institution by Christ.[/quote]
I agree that it was a response to the Protestant heresy, but sadly the response involved accepting the Reformers false presuppositions.

[Aloysius]

My terminology can be imprecise at times, please don't harp on that. I'm trying to determine which things He instituted between His birth and His Ascension, a specific time period of great importance. Again, I affirm that this does NOT mean He did not directly institute other things within the Church, I simply wish to understand which ones He Himself DID during that specific time period.

You know what I mean by pre-empting the question: I affirmed that Christ acts equally in the Church later as well, but there has to be a way to specify that specific time period. For instance, if someone says "during Christ's public ministry" I could be a stick in the mud and say "well doesn't Christ continue to act in a public ministry through His actions in the Church for the rest of time?"... but sometimes we wish to speak only about the 3 years of public ministry preceding His crucifixion. sometimes we wish to speak only about the 33 years of Christ's life on Earth before His ascension. can I speak about those? can I question those?

I am not trying to call you to re-define what a mystery is; I am asking if there are a certain number of mysteries Christ actively did to the faithful while He lived (for the 33 years between His birth and ascension/Pentecost)

[LouisvilleFan]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1858716' date='May 5 2009, 06:23 PM']I agree that it was a response to the Protestant heresy, but sadly the response involved accepting the Reformers false presuppositions.[/quote]

Just to make sure I "got it", what was their false presupposition?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1858731' date='May 5 2009, 03:29 PM']Just to make sure I "got it", what was their false presupposition?[/quote]
First and foremost they divided Christ from His body the Church, and so they held that "sacraments" (i.e., the holy mysteries) were works of man alone. It ultimately goes back to the false notion that one is saved by faith alone.

Edited May 5, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1858730' date='May 5 2009, 03:28 PM']My terminology can be imprecise at times, please don't harp on that. I'm trying to determine which things He instituted between His birth and His Ascension, a specific time period of great importance. . . .[/quote]
From an Eastern Christian perspective your desire to pin-point things within a certain time frame is irrelevant.

The Church is the perpetual extension of the incarnation through space and time, which means that the Church is Christ Himself.